Latest topics
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:11 am

Otremer6 wrote:

If MRyan wants to quote irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the point, that's his business, but he should be refuted.
Challenge accepted.

If Otremer6 can temporarily resist posting another “Rip Taylor” type image that is supposed to serve as a meaningful response, perhaps he can justify his rhetoric with an actual argument that "refutes" the relevancy of my citation.

To refresh the memory, Otemer6 is referring to the text I cited (Dom Prosper Gueranger) on the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents taken from the ancient Ambrosian Missile that goes in part: “and being bathed in their own blood, he effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom”, which, as Fr. Z and the Church knows all too well, is a clear reference to baptism of blood by the very fact “They suffer martyrdom before their bodies are ripe for martyrdom: they bear testimony to Christ before they have even known him.

Otremer6 calls this proof text “irrelevant” as he mocks Fr. Z and mocks the tradition of the Church (the testimony of which does not seem to understand when Baptism was instituted!) by suggesting that the Holy Innocents could not have been martyred by "being bathed in their own blood” (commonly knows as baptism of blood), through “the salvation of regeneration” when the salvation of regeneration (Baptism) was not yet formally instituted.

This is Pharisaical Feeneyism at its finest when “the Law of Baptism” prevents even the final, the efficient, the meritorious and the alone formal cause of life everlasting from acting as the instrumental cause of salvation by providing the benefits of “the salvation of regeneration” to the Holy Innocents who were martyred “in their own blood” while “bear[ing] testimony to Christ before they have even known him.”

According to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents) Fr. Z is absolutely correct when he writes:

"St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with the question of how the Innocents could be considered martyrs if they didn’t yet have use of their free will so as to be able to choose death in favor of Christ and if they were not baptized. He answered that God permitted their slaughter for their own good and that their slaying brought them the justification and salvation that would also come from baptism. This was a “baptism of blood”. In their deaths they were truly martyrs. And they were indeed for Christ, since Herod, fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15, killed them from ill-will for the new-born Christ."

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/12/wdtprs-childermas-holy-innocents/
The traditional teaching of the Church, as usual, stands vindicated, and the naysayer[s] refuted.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:31 am

The sacrament wasn't yet instituted, so your point is invalid.

Next.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:42 am

otremer6 wrote:The sacrament wasn't yet instituted, so your point is invalid.

Next.
How so?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:52 am

MRyan wrote:
otremer6 wrote:The sacrament wasn't yet instituted, so your point is invalid.

Next.
How so?

Because there was no law of baptism. The Church hadn't been established yet either. There was only the prefigurement of the Church in the Jewish people. In other words, prior Christ establishing the Sacrament, there was no law prescribing it so it's disingenuous at best to pretend that the Holy Innocents had received the Grace of Baptism according to a Law that hadn't been established.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:27 pm

otremer6 wrote:
MRyan wrote:
otremer6 wrote:The sacrament wasn't yet instituted, so your point is invalid.

Next.
How so?

Because there was no law of baptism. The Church hadn't been established yet either. There was only the prefigurement of the Church in the Jewish people. In other words, prior Christ establishing the Sacrament, there was no law prescribing it so it's disingenuous at best to pretend that the Holy Innocents had received the Grace of Baptism according to a Law that hadn't been established.
Are you suggesting that the Holy Innocents did NOT "suffer martyrdom before their bodies are ripe for martyrdom" and that "they" did NOT "bear testimony to Christ before they have even known him”?

If so, and contrary to the tradition and teaching of the Church, are you suggesting that the Holy Innocents were not saved in the following manner: "being bathed in their own blood he [our Lord] effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom"?

How can the Church declare they have been given "the crown of martyrdom" if they were prevented by Law from receiving the salvific effects of "the salvation of regeneration" upon being "bathed in their own blood"?

Are you suggesting that the Church, tradition and her Doctors are in error, and have been since the 5th century?

And are you actually suggesting that our Lord binds Himself to His own Law of Baptism to the extent that a divine and ecclesiastical precept promulgated in a specific point of time prevents our Lord from applying the fruit and merit of His Redemption to those who died for Him in their own blood prior to the institution of the Church and prior to the institution of Baptism, while the child Jesus (the Head of the Mystical Body, the Church ... NOT a "prefigurement" of the Head of the Mystical Body, but the Head) walked this earth?

Really?

If so, please explain what the Church means, in her ancient Liturgy, and in the continuous tradition since at least the 5th century, where she declares that the Holy Innocents “being bathed in their own blood, he effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom”, when, according to the Otremer6 doctrine, our Lord could not "effect in them the salvation of regeneration", which regeneration, allegedly, can only be effected upon the formal institution of the sacrament.

Finally, if our Lord did not effect "in them the salvation of regeneration" (being bathed in their own blood) how were the Holy Innocents saved?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:35 pm

How were they saved indeed, since Christ hadn't instituted the Sacrament yet?

From Catholic Encyclopedia:

While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost.
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t708-otremer6-challenge-accepted

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:27 pm

What does the baptism of John the Baptist, which could not effect in anyone “the salvation of regeneration”, and which was only a "type" (a "prefigurement") of Baptism, have to do with the Holy Innocents "being bathed in their own blood”, by which our Lord (not John the Baptist) “effects in them the salvation of regeneration [NOT an OT "type" or prefigure for Baptism] and gives them the crown of martyrdom"?


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  Jehanne on Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:42 pm

For me, this debate ended some time ago. As I posted before, if angels truly exist, then it is at least possible that they could sacramentally Baptize the unborn. Impossible to ever disprove, so end of argument.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:05 pm

Jehanne wrote:For me, this debate ended some time ago. As I posted before, if angels truly exist, then it is at least possible that they could sacramentally Baptize the unborn. Impossible to ever disprove, so end of argument.
The Church does not justify the veracity of her doctrines on theoretical speculations that can neither be proven nor “dis-proven”; she bases her doctrines on truth and her own magisterial authority to proclaim that truth.

Tradition bears witness and the Church teaches that the Holy Innocents, “being bathed in their own blood he [our Lord] effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom", end of argument.

So speculating on whether our Lord saw fit to eventually have the Innocents Baptized in water is totally irrelevant to the Church’s teaching, for their salvation was assured with or without actual ablution since they had already received the “salvation of regeneration” directly from our Lord who is NOT bound by the sacraments to effect the same end.

But thanks for that valuable input.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  George Brenner on Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:25 pm

The sanctity of the Holy Innocents gives me great hope for the possible sanctity of the aborted and miscarried who are both known and unknown to us but all known to God.
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  Jehanne on Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:03 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:For me, this debate ended some time ago. As I posted before, if angels truly exist, then it is at least possible that they could sacramentally Baptize the unborn. Impossible to ever disprove, so end of argument.
The Church does not justify the veracity of her doctrines on theoretical speculations that can neither be proven nor “dis-proven”; she bases her doctrines on truth and her own magisterial authority to proclaim that truth.

Tradition bears witness and the Church teaches that the Holy Innocents, “being bathed in their own blood he [our Lord] effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom", end of argument.

So speculating on whether our Lord saw fit to eventually have the Innocents Baptized in water is totally irrelevant to the Church’s teaching, for their salvation was assured with or without actual ablution since they had already received the “salvation of regeneration” directly from our Lord who is NOT bound by the sacraments to effect the same end.

But thanks for that valuable input.

What the Church taught infallibly at the Council of Florence is this:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God...

The above statement is either true or it is false. It cannot both be true and false at the same time. Children can either be saved without sacramental Baptism or they cannot. If the former, then Catholicism is a lie. For if the Council of Florence erred on that point, then they could have erred on every other point. And if the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council, could err, this means that every other Council could err, also. One could hardly claim that Vatican II, if you accept that as being a true Council, taught without error while at the same time claiming that the Council of Florence did err.

If what Florence said is, indeed, true, then all the Holy Innocents were, without exception, sacramentally Baptized in Water. If you want to make the same claim about aborted infants, that's fine, also. It may not, in the end, be an either/or thing. We may have to accept our ignorance of such things this side of the grave.

On this point, the sedes are at least consistent, in that they claim that Vatican II was not a true Council because it was not presided over by a true Pope, who promulgated heretical ideas. The SSPX would have us believe that we need to sort the "wheat from the chaff" from Vatican II, deciding what part of the Council texts are part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and which parts are erroneous, even heretical.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:59 am

This truly does reveal the appalling state of the sedevacantist and rad-trad Feeneyite world when simple theological distinctions and a correct reading of the Church’s dogmas as she has always understood them are reduced to fallacious “either/or” sound bites such as this: “If children can be saved without sacramental Baptism … then Catholicism is a lie” and the Council of Florence would be the source of the lie; meaning, according to Pharisaical Feeneyism, the Council of Florence did not restrict her "once declared" meaning to the known (revealed and divinely instituted) remedy available to the Church and the infant (as the CCC declares), but also meant to positively exclude the unknown remedy available to our Lord (the remedy of Himself by a means known only to Himself).

In other words, according to Jehanne, Florence dogmatically declared that for the benefit of children our Lord cannot, and/or refuses to operate outside of His own divinely instituted Sacrament in order to effect the same end (regeneration).

Extending this fallacious non-sequitur to the Holy Innocents, if the only possible remedy (known or unknown) available to children and the Church (and our Lord) is actual Sacramental ablution, then the tradition of the Doctors and the Church, to include the clear testimony of the Church’s Liturgy, is a LIE for falsely teaching that the martyred Innocents received not only the grace of the sacrament, but the salvific effects of regeneration (the grace of divine son-ship) directly from our Lord (“being bathed in their own blood he [our Lord] effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom").

And of course, if Jehanne’s rigorist “interpretation” of Florence is true, this would also mean that the Church’s perennial tradition and teaching on baptism of blood, precisely as it is taught in the CCC and elsewhere, is all a big LIE. Jehanne’s answer to the “lie” is to dispatch the water-bearing Angels, as if this fantasy (after all, it cannot be proven false) somehow “reconciles” the clear teaching of the Church on baptism of blood (which takes the place, and applies the same salvific effects, of Baptism).

What Jehanne cannot get his head wrapped around is the fact that the doctrine of baptism of blood presupposes that the sacrament of Baptism cannot or was not conferred by some necessity, and that baptism of blood results in the same end (regeneration) with an even greater influx of grace. If baptism of blood is in fact non-salvific (it cannot effect regeneration without water baptism), then the doctrine is a lie, as is the Church’s sacred Liturgy and the traditional teaching on the Holy Innocents.

If the Church’s tradition and testimony are true (which of course they are), Jehanne is left with the ridiculous and even blasphemous argument that says that our Lord was free to apply the merit and effects of Baptismal regeneration to the Innocents because He had not yet instituted the Law of Baptism, whereby we must conclude that our Lord had greater freedom under the Old Dispensation to serve as the Instrumental cause of Regeneration than He does under the new law of grace where He allegedly restricts Himself (for children) solely to the instrument of the Sacrament.

In other words, those who lived before Christ’s Redemption could reap merits from the cross (regeneration) that those afterwards cannot; which would render the Old Covenant of Moses superior to the New Covenant of Christ.

One can accept the doctrine of Otremer6 that denies the Holy Innocents the salvific effects of regeneration; one can accept the doctrine of Jehanne which calls the Church a liar if baptism of blood for children is true (without the absolute necessity of the Sacrament), or one can follow the Magisterium.

Gee, tough choice, that.

I’ll close with words of wisdom from St. Augustine and Pope St. Leo the Great:

Blessed are you, Bethlehem in the land of Judah! You suffered the inhumanity of King Herod in the murder of your babes and thereby have become worthy to offer to the Lord a pure host of infants. In full right do we celebrate the heavenly birthday of these children whom the world caused to be born unto an eternally blessed life rather than that from their mothers' womb, for they attained the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present. The precious death of any martyr deserves high praise because of his heroic confession; the death of these children is precious in the sight of God because of the beatitude they gained so quickly. For already at the beginning of their lives they pass on. The end of the present life is for them the beginning of glory. These then, whom Herod's cruelty tore as sucklings from their mothers' bosom, are justly hailed as "infant martyr flowers"; they were the Church's first blossoms, matured by the frost of persecution during the cold winter of unbelief.” (St. Augustine)
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461):

Sermon XXXI: on the Feast of the Epiphany, I

III. The massacre of the Innocents is in harmony with the Virgin's conception, which again teaches us purity of life.


And when the wise men had returned to their own land, and Jesus had been carried into Egypt at the Divine suggestion, Herod's madness blazes out into fruitless schemes. He orders all the little ones in Bethlehem to be slain, and since he knows not which infant to fear, extends a general sentence against the age he suspects. But that which the wicked king removes from the world, Christ admits to heaven: and on those for whom He had not yet spent His redeeming blood, He already bestows the dignity of martyrdom. Lift your faithful hearts then, dearly-beloved, to the gracious blaze of eternal light, and in adoration of the mysteries dispensed for man's salvation give your diligent heed to the things which have been wrought on your behalf. Love the purity of a chaste life, because Christ is the Son of a virgin. "Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul," as the blessed Apostle, present in his words as we read, exhorts us, "In malice be ye children," because the Lord of glory conformed Himself to the infancy of mortals. Follow after humility which the Son of God deigned to teach His disciples. Put on the power of patience, in which ye may be able to gain your souls; seeing that He who is the Redemption of all, is also the Strength of all. "Set your minds on the things which are above, not on the things which are on the earth." Walk firmly along the path of truth and life: let not earthly things hinder you for whom are prepared heavenly things through our LORD Jesus Christ, who with the Father and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen

St. Raymund of Pennafort, St. Emerentiana and St. Ildephonsus, pray for us.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:36 pm

MRyan wrote:What does the baptism of John the Baptist, which could not effect in anyone “the salvation of regeneration”, and which was only a "type" (a "prefigurement") of Baptism, have to do with the Holy Innocents "being bathed in their own blood”, by which our Lord (not John the Baptist) “effects in them the salvation of regeneration [NOT an OT "type" or prefigure for Baptism] and gives them the crown of martyrdom"?



When was the law of Baptism instituted by Christ, again?

You do know what typology is, correct?

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  Jehanne on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:58 pm

MRyan wrote:Jehanne’s answer to the “lie” is to dispatch the water-bearing Angels, as if this fantasy (after all, it cannot be proven false) somehow “reconciles” the clear teaching of the Church on baptism of blood (which takes the place, and applies the same salvific effects, of Baptism).

Interesting that you think that angels are fantasy. (Dawkins could not agree more.) If I have misunderstood you, then what do you think that angels do all day? Are you saying that it is impossible that angels, if they indeed exist, can sacramentally baptize?

MRyan wrote:St. Raymund of Pennafort, St. Emerentiana and St. Ildephonsus, pray for us.

More fantasy? How can we know that they are, in fact, doing this?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:01 pm

otremer6 wrote:
When was the law of Baptism instituted by Christ, again?
Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Give it up, you cannot answer my questions or provide any sort of cogent rebuttal to my arguments and to the clear tradition and teachings of the Church.

You are left stammering over and over again, “When was the law of Baptism instituted by Christ, again?”, as if the Church has ever taught that our Lord is solemnly bound to the institution and instrument of His Sacrament for effecting the same salvific end (regeneration), even for the Innocents who “being bathed in their own blood he [our Lord] effects in them the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom".

As you run in circles within your ever-restricting wheel of logic, you are only making yourself look foolish.

otremer6 wrote:You do know what typology is, correct?
Of course I do, and what part of my response where I draw the necessary distinctions and explain the critical difference do you not understand?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:46 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Jehanne’s answer to the “lie” is to dispatch the water-bearing Angels, as if this fantasy (after all, it cannot be proven false) somehow “reconciles” the clear teaching of the Church on baptism of blood (which takes the place, and applies the same salvific effects, of Baptism).

Interesting that you think that angels are fantasy. (Dawkins could not agree more.) If I have misunderstood you, then what do you think that angels do all day? Are you saying that it is impossible that angels, if they indeed exist, can sacramentally baptize?
Here we go again with Jehannian spin. No, I never said “that angels are fantasy”, and what a ridiculous thing to suggest. Pay attention. What I said was that the fantasy of water-bearing angels is completely irrelevant to the doctrine of baptism of blood; a doctrine that teaches that baptism of blood effects the same end as water baptism (Regeneration into Christ) when the sacrament was not or could not be administered.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:St. Raymund of Pennafort, St. Emerentiana and St. Ildephonsus, pray for us.
More fantasy? How can we know that they are, in fact, doing this?
Because, as part of the Communion of Saints, we know they hear our petitions and act as our advocates before our Lord; and because tradition and the Church tells us this is true.

I don’t remember a tradition, or the Church ever telling us that angels act as ministers for the sacrament of baptism, let alone that they act out of some necessity; meaning that the Law of Baptism does NOT necessitate this type of never-heard-of miraculous intervention, for the simple reason that baptism of blood effects regeneration and unity with Christ in the grace of divine son-ship.

That's what baptism of blood does, and that's the doctrine of the Church, which does not include water-bearing angels being dispatched to provide what is already provided (salvation) through the grace of martyrdom. If you want to argue that they are dispatched (and that souls are sometimes raised from the dead) in order to have them receive the organic seal of Baptism; fine, but never has the Church declared that the Baptismal seal is intrinsically necessary for salvation, or that these same martyred souls are not already united to our Lord in this most perfect act of charity.

Please pay attention and stay on script.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Jehanne’s answer to the “lie” is to dispatch the water-bearing Angels, as if this fantasy (after all, it cannot be proven false) somehow “reconciles” the clear teaching of the Church on baptism of blood (which takes the place, and applies the same salvific effects, of Baptism).

Interesting that you think that angels are fantasy. (Dawkins could not agree more.) If I have misunderstood you, then what do you think that angels do all day? Are you saying that it is impossible that angels, if they indeed exist, can sacramentally baptize?

MRyan wrote:St. Raymund of Pennafort, St. Emerentiana and St. Ildephonsus, pray for us.

More fantasy? How can we know that they are, in fact, doing this?

Before the institution of the Sacrament, no one was bound by it. The Holy Innocents went into Limbo, presumably with the Fathers.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:26 pm

otremer6 wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Jehanne’s answer to the “lie” is to dispatch the water-bearing Angels, as if this fantasy (after all, it cannot be proven false) somehow “reconciles” the clear teaching of the Church on baptism of blood (which takes the place, and applies the same salvific effects, of Baptism).

Interesting that you think that angels are fantasy. (Dawkins could not agree more.) If I have misunderstood you, then what do you think that angels do all day? Are you saying that it is impossible that angels, if they indeed exist, can sacramentally baptize?

MRyan wrote:St. Raymund of Pennafort, St. Emerentiana and St. Ildephonsus, pray for us.

More fantasy? How can we know that they are, in fact, doing this?

Before the institution of the Sacrament, no one was bound by it. The Holy Innocents went into Limbo, presumably with the Fathers.
Actually, in every age all men were and are bound to being regenerated into Christ (Baptism being His chosen and ordinary instrument for the transmission thereof under the new Law of grace), just as everyone was and is bound to having supernatural faith in Christ, even if He was not always explicitly revealed (implicit faith).

Of course, you are referring to the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism (of which circumcision and the baptism administered by John were types or prefigurements); and of course, no one was bound to the actual Sacrament under the Old Law; though without the grace it transmits, no one could be or can be saved.

However, that the Holy Innocents went to Limbo (presumably with the Fathers) is entirely irrelevant to the fact that unlike the Fathers who had received the grace of justification (as servants), the Holy Innocents received also the grace of regeneration (the grace of divine son-ship) and became adopted sons of God, as tradition and the Church attest.

Let me spell it out for you: While both the Fathers and the Innocents received the remission of sins and the gift of sanctifying grace in anticipation of our Lord’s Redemption (by way of explicit or implicit faith and the desire to do the will of God in all things), the Holy Innocents “being bathed in their own blood” received the additional benefit of having our Lord effect in them “the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom".

In other words, anticipating His own Redemption, the Holy Innocents received from our Lord (who is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end) the true and fulfilled justification (regeneration) that is effected by Baptism, “or the desire for it”, under the new law of grace. If they could not ascend immediately to heaven, it was only because the gates remained closed until the Redemption was fulfilled in act (but they also enjoyed, through substantial unity with our Lord, “the Reward exceeding great” and thus the “glory of heaven”).

And so you end up rejecting the Church’s tradition and teaching because you can’t get your mind around the fact that Our Lord is not bound by His own precept and the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism to effect the same end (regeneration), so you not only deny the Holy Innocents “the salvation of regeneration”, you place yourself in opposition to an entire tradition, and against the Magisterium of the Church.

But, that’s what Feeneyites do.

Let me finish by providing additional context to your somewhat misleading citation taken from the CE, where it says:

While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost.
Let’s be clear, John's baptism did not confer grace ex opere operato; but, being a type or sign of Baptism, through it sins were forgiven, placing one in a state of sanctifying grace (similar to circumcision), but still as a servant and not as an adopted son. The fulfilled grace that was still lacking was the abiding grace of the Holy Ghost that one receives under the New Law by being made a son of God in the grace of divine son-ship.

Set your Feeneyite blinders aside, and accept the beauty and richness of the Truth.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:27 pm

MRyan wrote:
otremer6 wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Jehanne’s answer to the “lie” is to dispatch the water-bearing Angels, as if this fantasy (after all, it cannot be proven false) somehow “reconciles” the clear teaching of the Church on baptism of blood (which takes the place, and applies the same salvific effects, of Baptism).

Interesting that you think that angels are fantasy. (Dawkins could not agree more.) If I have misunderstood you, then what do you think that angels do all day? Are you saying that it is impossible that angels, if they indeed exist, can sacramentally baptize?

MRyan wrote:St. Raymund of Pennafort, St. Emerentiana and St. Ildephonsus, pray for us.

More fantasy? How can we know that they are, in fact, doing this?

Before the institution of the Sacrament, no one was bound by it. The Holy Innocents went into Limbo, presumably with the Fathers.
Actually, in every age all men were and are bound to being regenerated into Christ (Baptism being His chosen and ordinary instrument for the transmission thereof under the new Law of grace), just as everyone was and is bound to having supernatural faith in Christ, even if He was not always explicitly revealed (implicit faith).
That's where MRyan speculation begins and authoritative statements end.


Of course, you are referring to the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism (of which circumcision and the baptism administered by John were types or prefigurements); and of course, no one was bound to the actual Sacrament under the Old Law; though without the grace it transmits, no one could be or can be saved.
According to Saint Paul, the expectations of the Old Law were not salvific, which is why the Fathers waited in limbus patrem for Christ to come and take them from Hell.


However, that the Holy Innocents went to Limbo (presumably with the Fathers) is entirely irrelevant to the fact that unlike the Fathers who had received the grace of justification (as servants), the Holy Innocents received also the grace of regeneration (the grace of divine son-ship) and became adopted sons of God, as tradition and the Church attest.
Holy Innocents, including all of the just who preceded Christ, had to be redeemed and brought out of Hell.


Let me spell it out for you: While both the Fathers and the Innocents received the remission of sins and the gift of sanctifying grace in anticipation of our Lord’s Redemption (by way of explicit or implicit faith and the desire to do the will of God in all things), the Holy Innocents “being bathed in their own blood” received the additional benefit of having our Lord effect in them “the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom".
If that were so, then they would have been brought up to heaven. What are you, some kind of judaizer?


In other words, anticipating His own Redemption, the Holy Innocents received from our Lord (who is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end) the true and fulfilled justification (regeneration) that is effected by Baptism, “or the desire for it”, under the new law of grace. If they could not ascend immediately to heaven, it was only because the gates remained closed until the Redemption was fulfilled in act (but they also enjoyed, through substantial unity with our Lord, “the Reward exceeding great” and thus the “glory of heaven”).
Now you're trying to jam baptism of desire on the tail end of all this? There is only one Baptism for the remission of sins.


And so you end up rejecting the Church’s tradition and teaching because you can’t get your mind around the fact that Our Lord is not bound by His own precept and the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism to effect the same end (regeneration), so you not only deny the Holy Innocents “the salvation of regeneration”, you place yourself in opposition to an entire tradition, and against the Magisterium of the Church.
Those who died before the New Covenant, were regenerated by Christ. I don't know what you're trying to do. This is pretty non-controversial stuff.

The Old Law can only condemn, it can not save, and while the prefigurements pointed to the New Law, they were not sanctifying.

Sorry, St. Paul says as much.


But, that’s what Feeneyites do.

Let me finish by providing additional context to your somewhat misleading citation taken from the CE, where it says:

While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost.
Let’s be clear, John's baptism did not confer grace ex opere operato; but, being a type or sign of Baptism, through it sins were forgiven, placing one in a state of sanctifying grace (similar to circumcision), but still as a servant and not as an adopted son. The fulfilled grace that was still lacking was the abiding grace of the Holy Ghost that one receives under the New Law by being made a son of God in the grace of divine son-ship.

Set your Feeneyite blinders aside, and accept the beauty and richness of the Truth.

Did the Old Law give the Holy Ghost?

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  George Brenner on Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:21 pm

The prescribed { Sacramental Baptism of Water } way to get a degree { Heaven/ Purgatory} is to graduate { die a Catholic in the state of grace free from Mortal sin} Why would any one want to even question God's will to grant or not grant an honorary degree { Baptism of Blood or Desire} as He sees fit is beyond me.
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:15 pm

Let’s begin with the last, first.

otremer6 wrote:
Did the Old Law give the Holy Ghost?
I try to be very precise in my terminology and in my meaning, and you seem to relish ambiguity in your clipped replies to my comments.

The Old Law alone could not “give” anything of a supernatural nature, let alone confer grace; though, through the sacraments and through the observance of the precepts, one could indeed attain the grace of justification (through faith and devotion) because Christ and the Sacraments were foreshadowed in the Old Law. So yes, the Holy Ghost was given under the Old Law, but not because of the power of Old Law (it had none).

But, and this is critical, the Holy Ghost was not given in an abiding manner, as He is under the New Law. Here’s a refresher, just so we stay on the same page (if that’s possible):

Divinum Illud Munus
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Holy Spirit

May 9, 1897

7. The manner and extent of the action of the Holy Ghost in individual souls is no less wonderful, although somewhat more difficult to understand, inasmuch as it is entirely invisible. This outpouring of the Spirit is so abundant, that Christ Himself, from whose gift it proceeds, compares it to an overflowing river, according to those words of St. John: "He that believeth in Me, as the Scripture saith, out of his midst shall flow rivers of living water"; to which testimony the Evangelist adds the explanation: "Now this He said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in Him" John vii., 38, 39). It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.). But if they also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, for "as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant, but is under tutors and governors" (Gal. iv., 1, 2). Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much la our, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).

In summary:

- It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace
- their justice derived [though “the communication of the Holy Ghost”] from the merits of Christ who was to come
- But if they also were numbered among the children of God [where the Holy Ghost resided by grace], they were in a state like that of servants
- Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified”
- For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind"

Under the Old Law, the Holy Ghost resided or operated in a just soul by grace (unfulfilled justification), but He did not give of His uncreated Self in an abiding substantial manner (fulfilled justification) until “after Christ's glorification” whereby “ … the Holy Ghost, as We have said, dwells in us as in His temple” (para 10).

Before replying to the rest of your comments, is there anything here you disagree with?

And, please explain what you mean by “Those who died before the New Covenant, were regenerated by Christ.”

Regenerated how?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:48 am

The Just, including the Holy Innocents, were not justified till after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out.

The manner of the death of the Holy Innocents was no more an actual baptism than the waters that surrounded the Ark or circumcision, but it prefigured baptism.

Baptism was not a precept under the old law, was it?

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:36 pm

otremer6 wrote:The Just, including the Holy Innocents, were not justified till after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out.

The manner of the death of the Holy Innocents was no more an actual baptism than the waters that surrounded the Ark or circumcision, but it prefigured baptism.

Baptism was not a precept under the old law, was it?
Finally, some clarity (of sorts); or is it?

Who ever said that "The manner of the death of the Holy Innocents was ... an actual baptism?

No, "Baptism was not a precept under the old law", and who said it was?

But, and more importantly:

What does it mean to say that the Just who lived under the Old Law, to include the Holy Innocents, were NOT JUSTIFIED?

Does it mean that it is NOT true that for the “just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace”?

If not by sanctifying grace, how did the Holy Ghost reside in the “just who lived before Christ"?

Did Pope Leo XIII get it wrong?

Does "the Just ... were not justified" mean that it is NOT true that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”?

Are you suggesting that the merits of Christ [the remission of sins and sanctifying grace] could not be applied until He "descended into Hell to draw them out"?

If so, how can the justice of the Just, who you say were not “justified”, be “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come” if they were not already justified by grace? You cannot have it both ways.

Did Pope Leo XIII get it wrong?

Are you suggesting: “Wherefore [when] St. John declares: ‘As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified’, does this mean not only "that [the] giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification … had not been of the same kind”, but it “had never been before”, period (the Holy Ghost never resided in the Just by grace)?

Did Pope Leo XIII get it wrong?

And what does having to wait for “being drawn out” of the “paradise” and “prison” of the Limbus partum (that temporary place in “the lower parts of the earth", as St. Paul teaches (Ephesians 4:9), which is distinct not only from Purgatory, but from the eternal confines and punishment of Hell) have to do with the grace of justification already received (unfulfilled justification), or the “the salvation of regeneration” enjoyed by the Holy Innocents?

Let your words be yea, yea, or no, no, Otremer6, and answer the questions.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:29 pm

No idea what distinctions you're trying to make.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:03 pm

otremer6 wrote:No idea what distinctions you're trying to make.
It’s very simple, actually, and I believe you know exactly the distinctions I am trying to make, for they are the very same distinctions made by Pope Leo XIII and the Church.

I’m just trying to extract an honest answer from you; but you refuse to answer my very direct questions. Why? Why do you refuse to tell us what being "Just" means under the Old Law since, you say, it does NOT mean "justification"?

Let’s try it this way as we begin all over again:

You said:

The Just, including the Holy Innocents, were not justified till after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out.
Were the Just of the Old Law, including the Holy Innocents, in a state of sanctifying grace? Yes or no.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:55 pm

MRyan wrote:
otremer6 wrote:No idea what distinctions you're trying to make.
It’s very simple, actually, and I believe you know exactly the distinctions I am trying to make, for they are the very same distinctions made by Pope Leo XIII and the Church. Rolling Eyes

I’m just trying to extract an honest [really?] answer from you; but you refuse to answer my very direct questions. Why? Why do you refuse to tell us what being "Just" means under the Old Law since, you say, it does NOT mean "justification"?

Let’s try it this way as we begin all over again:

You said:

The Just, including the Holy Innocents, were not justified till after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out.
Were the Just of the Old Law, including the Holy Innocents, in a state of sanctifying grace? Yes or no.

Do you always assume the worst in your opponents? I don't think I've responded to you with these abusive terms in these discussions.

Why don't you go to the spa and get your nails done or something? I'll bet you need a hug.




otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:49 pm

otremer6 wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Let’s try it this way as we begin all over again:

You said:

The Just, including the Holy Innocents, were not justified till after Christ descended into Hell to draw them out.
Were the Just of the Old Law, including the Holy Innocents, in a state of sanctifying grace? Yes or no.
Do you always assume the worst in your opponents? I don't think I've responded to you with these abusive terms in these discussions.
The only thing I've "assumed" thus far is that you refuse to answer my questions, you've been evasive and that you refuse to define your terms when I ask for an explanation and clarification on some very specific points.

It appears to me you have a lot in common with a certain snarky moderator at AQ ... more than you would like to admit. You respond to a challenge with cartoons. You should have been a comedian.

You said that I needed to be refuted; so I am giving you the chance to do just that. So far you haven't refuted anything ... at least not with any substance. In fact, I cannot make any sense of your answers whatsoever; and you then insult me when I ask for further qualifications by asking you some very direct questions and by providing magisterial proof texts that support my position -- and you simply provide more clipped and evasive sound bites that you say are "obvious".

Well, gee, just call me "dense"; but I don't understand your answers -- all I see is smoke.

So indulge me. Once again; were the Just of the Old Law, including the Holy Innocents, in a state of sanctifying grace, or not?

Thank you in advance for answering the question.

Why is this like pulling teeth?





avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:23 pm

Pretty self-evident. The Holy Innocents weren't justified till AFTER Christ descended into Hell.


otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  Jehanne on Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:47 pm

Major Premise: The Holy Innocents died in a state of grace; as such, they are in Paradise.

Minor Premise: Since the coming of Christ, infants who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven.

Conclusion: The Holly Innocents died with sacramental Baptism.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:35 pm

Jehanne wrote:Major Premise: The Holy Innocents died in a state of grace; as such, they are in Paradise.
True, but it is more accurate to say that when they died in a state of grace they went to the Paradise of the Limbus Patrum; they are now in the Paradise of Heaven.

Minor Premise: Since the coming of Christ, infants who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven.
Not quite. Since our Lord's Passion and Redemption, the Church knows of only one remedy (water baptism) that can assure the salvation of infants. But, the mercy of God and His tenderness towards children "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism".

The Holy Innocents died prior to our Lord's actual Passion and Redemption.

Your flawed minor premise drives your false conclusion:

Conclusion: The Holly Innocents died with sacramental Baptism.
Logical fallacy.

Conclusion: The Holy Innocents died in a state of grace prior to the Redemption, with the merits of our Lord's Redemption being applied to their martyred souls directly by our Lord. Their justified and Redeemed souls (glorified in our Lord) waited in the "Paradise" of the Limbus Patrum until the gates of Heaven were opened.

Simple, Traditional, Liturgical and Doctrinal.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:09 pm

They weren't justified till after Christ drew them out of Hell.

I've been saying that throughout this entire "discussion".

Don't hurt yourself there, Mike.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  Jehanne on Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:11 pm

MRyan wrote:Not quite. Since our Lord's Passion and Redemption, the Church knows of only one remedy (water baptism) that can assure the salvation of infants. But, the mercy of God and His tenderness towards children "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism".

Which is of higher authority, the CCC or the Council of Carthage?

For the benefit of our readers:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my house there are many mansions': that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left. [cf. Matthew 25,46]” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Does the words "know," "know of," or equivalent appear in the above text? If not, is paragraph #1261 in the CCC an infallible statement? If I reject it, am I a heretic? Is it possible for the Magisterium to ever annul, reverse, etc. #1261? Or, is the CCC irreformable?

How about the Catechism of Pope Pius X:

Pope Pius X Catechism

11 Q: When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?

A: Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?

A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

Does the above text contain errors?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:05 pm

otremer6 wrote:They weren't justified till after Christ drew them out of Hell.

I've been saying that throughout this entire "discussion".

Don't hurt yourself there, Mike.
“Patience” is my middle name. This is the question you are responding to, though for some strange reason you cannot give me a straight answer:

So indulge me. Once again; were the Just of the Old Law, including the Holy Innocents, in a state of sanctifying grace, or not?

Thank you in advance for answering the question.
See, I'm not sure I understand how the "Just" who lived before Christ could be “Just” but NOT "justified" in grace (even if, as Pope Leo XIII declared, this pre-Gospel justice "had not been of the same kind ... because Jesus was not yet glorified").

Neither do I understand how The Holy Innocents could not be "justified" until our Lord came to Redeem them when Pope St. Leo the Great, speaking of the same Innocents, said:

on those for whom He had not yet spent His redeeming blood, He already bestows the dignity of martyrdom” and “these children … attained the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present” and “the death of these children is precious in the sight of God because of the beatitude they gained so quickly
Now don’t hurt yourself with this, or have a temper tantrum, but is there something here you do not understand?

Neither do I understand how the OT “just” could not be “justified” until our Lord came to Redeem them when Pope Leo XIII, in his major encyclical on the Holy Spirit, most certainly declared that:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna” and that “their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.
Do you mean to say that what Pope Leo XIII said was “indeed true”, is not true?

Now, don’t hurt yourself with this, or have a temper tantrum, but would you mind answering these very direct questions?

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:14 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Not quite. Since our Lord's Passion and Redemption, the Church knows of only one remedy (water baptism) that can assure the salvation of infants. But, the mercy of God and His tenderness towards children "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism".

Which is of higher authority, the CCC or the Council of Carthage?

For the benefit of our readers:
Jehanne,

Please note the title of this thread and then note how you are once again hi-jacking the thread with these inanities.

I already answered in sufficient magisterial and theological detail your logical fallacies and factual errors, so why do you insist on presenting the same stale false arguments without addressing my previous responses?

Start another thread if you must ... but please stop hi-jacking this one.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:39 pm

The only people from the Old Testament who went directly to heaven were Elijah, Enoch and possibly others and they have yet to die, but will be killed before the parousia according to tradition.


otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  pascendi on Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:48 pm

Still at it? Ah well. Excellent job, Cyril... I like Jehanne's syllogism above as well. It does in fact work. btw Cyril I've decided to take a breather from FB fyi. I'll be back laterz.

I think, Mike, that no one would really mind disagreeing with you if you were to merely refrain from attacking them personally and, well, basically trying to make them out to be Sons of Satan ranged against the Church because they don't accept your layman's presentation of "what the Church clearly teaches" (in your own mind at least). A simple question: why, why, why, don't you just quit with the failed approach? It is almost as if you're attempting to become a known apologist. That'd be horrible.

Man, I wish I had the patience and stamina for these kinds of conversations still. Sometimes I'm still tempted to think that a few more paragraphs, a little more overlooking at the glaring faults of others, will win some measure of unity among the sons of God.

Shortcut: everyone needs baptism. The Holy Innocents got it. Got the real thing. As did all those in the limbo of the Fathers. No brainer. There was even water there: "let Lazarus dip his finger in the water..."




pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:13 am

otremer6 wrote:The only people from the Old Testament who went directly to heaven were Elijah, Enoch and possibly others and they have yet to die, but will be killed before the parousia according to tradition.
And that’s your response? And here I thought you might actually answer my very direct questions, such as:

MRyan wrote:
otremer6 wrote:They weren't justified till after Christ drew them out of Hell.

I've been saying that throughout this entire "discussion".

Don't hurt yourself there, Mike.
“Patience” is my middle name. This is the question you are responding to, though for some strange reason you cannot give me a straight answer:

So indulge me. Once again; were the Just of the Old Law, including the Holy Innocents, in a state of sanctifying grace, or not?

Thank you in advance for answering the question.
See, I'm not sure I understand how the "Just" who lived before Christ could be “Just” but NOT "justified" in grace (even if, as Pope Leo XIII declared, this pre-Gospel justice "had not been of the same kind ... because Jesus was not yet glorified").

Neither do I understand how The Holy Innocents could not be "justified" until our Lord came to Redeem them when Pope St. Leo the Great, speaking of the same Innocents, said:

on those for whom He had not yet spent His redeeming blood, He already bestows the dignity of martyrdom” and “these children … attained the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present” and “the death of these children is precious in the sight of God because of the beatitude they gained so quickly
Now don’t hurt yourself with this, or have a temper tantrum, but is there something here you do not understand?

Neither do I understand how the OT “just” could not be “justified” until our Lord came to Redeem them when Pope Leo XIII, in his major encyclical on the Holy Spirit, most certainly declared that:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna” and that “their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.
Do you mean to say that what Pope Leo XIII said was “indeed true”, is not true?

Now, don’t hurt yourself with this, or have a temper tantrum, but would you mind answering these very direct questions?
But, seeing that you refuse to provide a direct answer to these questions, except to strongly imply by your clipped and evasive responses that you do NOT believe, contrary to what the Church clearly teaches, that the OT Just who waited in the Limbus Patrum until our Lord’s Ascension were justified in grace; and as such, in the Just who lived before Christ the Holy Ghost did NOT reside by grace; and neither, in the case of the Holy Innocents (“on those for whom He had not yet spent His redeeming blood'), our Lord did NOT "already bestow the dignity of martyrdom”, and neither did “these children … attain the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present”.

Isn’t that right, Cyril? You can stop hiding now and say, “yes, that’s right, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Leo the Great, the ancient Ambrosian Missile, the Doctors and all of tradition got it wrong”. Why? Because “The sacrament wasn't yet instituted, so your point is invalid”. Invalid? Yes; see "there was no law prescribing it so it's disingenuous at best to pretend that the Holy Innocents had received the Grace of Baptism according to a Law that hadn't been established".

Whew.

But what you don’t seem to understand is that our Lord was not bound by the not-yet-instituted law of Baptism in order to “effect in them the salvation of regeneration, and give them the crown of martyrdom”. The salvific grace of Baptism is sanctifying grace, and though it would be given more abundantly after the Redemption (where the Holy Ghost would give of Himself {the Trinity} in the abiding grace of divine son-ship), sanctifying grace is still the created gift of the Holy Ghost and the OT Just were justified by this same grace by the merits of Christ who was to come.

You cited the CE to make the irrelevant point (one logical fallacy follows another) that “John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies”, and you said “the expectations of the Old Law were not salvific”, as if to suggest that I was suggesting that the sacraments and instruments (types) of the Old Law “produced grace”, when I said no such thing.

And I think your response in the following exchange pretty much sums up your position:

Mryan wrote:
Let me spell it out for you: While both the Fathers and the Innocents received the remission of sins and the gift of sanctifying grace in anticipation of our Lord’s Redemption (by way of explicit or implicit faith and the desire to do the will of God in all things), the Holy Innocents “being bathed in their own blood” received the additional benefit of having our Lord effect in them “the salvation of regeneration, and gives them the crown of martyrdom".

You replied: If that were so, then they would have been brought up to heaven. What are you, some kind of judaizer?
No, I’m not, and neither is St. Augustine, Pope St. Leo Great, the authors of (and the Pope who approved) the Ambrosian Liturgy, nor Fr. Z who cited the same Liturgical text.

You are actually suggesting by way of logical fallacy that IF it is true “They suffer martyrdom before their bodies are ripe for martyrdom: they bear testimony to Christ before they have even known him”, and IF it is true “and being bathed in their own blood, he effects in them the salvation of regeneration”, then "they would have been brought up to heaven."

So IF, before Christ, anyone was actually sanctified by grace by the merits of Christ who was to come (you know, like “the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”); and IF our Lord actually effected in the Holy Innocents (who “being bathed in their own blood … bear testimony to Christ before they have even known him"), "the salvation of regeneration", then they would NOT have had to wait in the Limbus Partum for the gates of Heaven to be opened; oh no, the Fathers, “the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, as well as the Holy Innocents, “would have [immediately] been brought up to heaven”, you know, like “Elijah, Enoch and possibly others.”

And this is the same person who said to me “That's where MRyan speculation begins and authoritative statements end.”

Sorry, Cyril, but the next time you say that I “should be refuted”, you’re going to have to do better than that; for if you really want to refute the Doctors and the Fathers, Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope Leo XIII, the Ambrosian Liturgy and tradition, you really should think twice before overturning all of the above in favor of an off-the-wall brand of Feeneyite “logic” -- an aberration that not even Fr. Feeney or the current St. Benedict Center would agree with.

I think we’re done; but thanks for the stimulating exchange, and the entertainment.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  MRyan on Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:33 pm

pascendi wrote:Still at it? Ah well. Excellent job, Cyril... I like Jehanne's syllogism above as well. It does in fact work. btw Cyril I've decided to take a breather from FB fyi.
Yeah, that syllogism was a great non-sequitur, and totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.
pascendi wrote:I'll be back later.
Can't wait. But, why? Don't you have a shed to build, or something more constructive to do with your time now that you are taking a "breather" from FB? Or, is it time to lecture us once again on the evils of forums (unlike FB) ... as you post away in that patronizing air of moral superiority you seem to relish?

pascendi wrote:I think, Mike, that no one would really mind disagreeing with you if you were to merely refrain from attacking them personally and, well, basically trying to make them out to be Sons of Satan ranged against the Church because they don't accept your layman's presentation of "what the Church clearly teaches" (in your own mind at least). A simple question: why, why, why, don't you just quit with the failed approach? It is almost as if you're attempting to become a known apologist. That'd be horrible.
I think, Paul, that your "Sons of Satan" routine is getting a bit stale; though, when it comes to our resident sede's, I'm sure you won't mind telling them, as you have in the past, that each and every one of them is a non-Catholic obstinate heretic. But, it's nothing personal, and thank goodness for that, know what I mean? "Fatima" of these pope-less times says the same thing about me, so you two should get along swimmingly.

And you're worried about someone having their "feelings" hurt? Quit trying to be play Mr. Rogers, it doesn't work.

pascendi wrote:
Shortcut: everyone needs baptism. The Holy Innocents got it. Got the real thing. As did all those in the limbo of the Fathers. No brainer. There was even water there: "let Lazarus dip his finger in the water..."
Well, thanks for that bit of Feeneyite revisionism. Between you and Jehanne's water-bearing angels, you've got the doctrines and traditions of the Church all figured out, even if what you propose is sheer speculation.

I have no problem at all with such an opinion, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, not that the simple courtesy of staying on topic has ever stopped you before. When one has an agenda, every thread comes a forum with which to push it.

Have fun with that, but if you ever want to add some actual substance to this particular thread by addressing my actual arguments, instead of insinuating that my "lay interpretation" of the clear teachings of Augustine, Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope Leo XIII, the Ambrosian Liturgical text and other solid traditional proofs is in error, then get off your horse and show me the error of my ways.

I wish you guys would quit saying I'm wrong and that I need to be refuted when all you can do is blow a lot of hot air, avoid the actual magisterial citations, change the subject and post logical and irrelevant fallacies. Come on, Paul, get your hands dirty; are you up to it? Believe it or not, if I am in error, I want to be corrected.

Obviously, I think my "interpretation" of Church teaching and tradition with respect to OT justice and the Holy Innocents is pretty solid. Only an aberrant Feeneyite revisionism attempts to muddy the waters and effectively deny these clear teachings and the clear words of our Popes.







avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:50 pm

No salvation outside of Mike's tortured understanding of doctrine.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  Jehanne on Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:19 pm

Look at this way. Both Pope Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council taught that there is no salvation outside of the Church, in that the group of "invincibly ignorant" and/or "those, who through no fault of their own..." constitute a null set, that is, a set without any members. This makes sense, if you think about it -- I can prove that I exist. Are you convinced? Or, do you think that I am some computer, space alien (which, by the way, would be absolutely detrimental to Catholic teaching, as all men are descended from Adam & Eve, even though Mike equates the existence of angels and space aliens), demon, or angel, or something else? This is something that we can know via induction. After all, if I can convince you that I exist, don't you think that the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent One and Triune God can do the same for each and every one of His Elect? If not, then He is not God, because I, a mere mortal, can something that He cannot do. And, if you admit that God can convince anyone of the Truth who is sincerely seeking it, then He must do that, because He, being God, is a Perfect Being, which means that He cannot lie, ever, which means that He would never, by His "divine light & grace," lead someone into a false religion or allow that person to remain in one.

Of course, what God can do in making known His Revelation to His Elect, He can also do by bringing Baptism to each and every one of them.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  pascendi on Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:20 pm

Mike, you're stilling doing it. Anger theology.

pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  pascendi on Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:53 pm

Do I want to get my hands dirty? No, not really. To be frank it is boring, seems most often a complete waste of time, but yet still, it is the kind of thing I would do if I absolutely had to, if it was that important.

What do you need? Maybe I can help.

pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  pascendi on Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:04 pm

My goodness. Digging around a bit, I see. There's a bit of a sede problem here, Mike. Firstly, I didn't cause that my friend. Not my fault. Secondly, I'd be willing to spar with a few people over it, if it would actually help anyone. I doubt it. And I wouldn't necessarily think it a good use of time. But if necessary, why not.

pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

Post  otremer6 on Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:49 pm

pascendi wrote:Do I want to get my hands dirty? No, not really. To be frank it is boring, seems most often a complete waste of time, but yet still, it is the kind of thing I would do if I absolutely had to, if it was that important.

What do you need? Maybe I can help.

But you're not doing it for yourself, hopefully.

I'd also heard that the Old Testament Fathers and the Just before the coming of Christ had to be Baptized by water, but I've never heard any source for this outside of St. Benedict Center, so I didn't use it.

I'm open to an alternative explanation.

otremer6

Posts : 390
Reputation : 952
Join date : 2011-02-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Otremer6 Challenge Accepted

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