Session 6 Chater 4 revelation

Jehanne wrote:
I agree 100%. However, I think that Trent is clear that imperfect contrition on the part of a catechumen, in the absence of Sacramental Baptism in Water, would not be sufficient for eternal life; for that, the actual Sacrament would be necessary.

I tend to agree, except for this one caveat.

When Trent goes into specific detail on "perfect contrition" she does so in the context of the sacrament of Penance; and I believe the reason for this is that the supernatural habit of faith and the power of the sacramental seal allow the penitent to reach levels of contrition that perhaps exceed the level of contrition that those who have never been justified in Baptism are capable of.

In other words, the Baptized are capable of participating in their return to justification to a greater degree than those who were never justified. While the contrition of both may be "sincere", the Baptized are capable of a more "perfect" charity (contrition) than the non-Baptized.

For the latter, contrition is heart-felt and a gift from God, but I do not believe that God expects the same level of "perfection" that He requires from the Baptized who have fallen from grace.

What may be considered merely "attrition" for the Baptized, may be a "perfection" of sorts for the non-Baptized, so long as there exists some level of true charity along with the more predominant attrition that is motivated by a salutary fear of our Lord (which is also contrition/penance).

While they may be justified through a healthy attrition and charity, the "perfection" of this contrition (charity) can be realized only by the infusion of supernatural grace/virtues; the fulness of which is found only in the sacrament or in blood martyrdom.

What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified with faith, charity and intention.

There's some Fr. Scheeben theology in the above, and I think he was on the right track.

Correction:

MRyan wrote:
What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified without faith, charity and intention.

I hate it when I do that.

MRyan wrote:Correction:

MRyan wrote:
What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified without faith, charity and intention.

I hate it when I do that.

Here... Let me correct this for you.

What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified except through faith, charity and intention.

Mike, A bit pushed for time right now but will respond to the Latin/English translation debate soon.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:Correction:

MRyan wrote:
What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified without faith, charity and intention.

I hate it when I do that.

Here... Let me correct this for you.

What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified except through faith, charity and intention.

Hey, works for me! If there was an aut or a vel in there, we could really have some fun.

columba wrote:Mike, A bit pushed for time right now but will respond to the Latin/English translation debate soon.

Understood, take your time. Bring some reinforcements.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
I agree 100%. However, I think that Trent is clear that imperfect contrition on the part of a catechumen, in the absence of Sacramental Baptism in Water, would not be sufficient for eternal life; for that, the actual Sacrament would be necessary.

I tend to agree, except for this one caveat.

When Trent goes into specific detail on "perfect contrition" she does so in the context of the sacrament of Penance; and I believe the reason for this is that the supernatural habit of faith and the power of the sacramental seal allow the penitent to reach levels of contrition that perhaps exceed the level of contrition that those who have never been justified in Baptism are capable of.

In other words, the Baptized are capable of participating in their return to justification to a greater degree than those who were never justified. While the contrition of both may be "sincere", the Baptized are capable of a more "perfect" charity (contrition) than the non-Baptized.

For the latter, contrition is heart-felt and a gift from God, but I do not believe that God expects the same level of "perfection" that He requires from the Baptized who have fallen from grace.

What may be considered merely "attrition" for the Baptized, may be a "perfection" of sorts for the non-Baptized, so long as there exists some level of true charity along with the more predominant attrition that is motivated by a salutary fear of our Lord (which is also contrition/penance).

While they may be justified through a healthy attrition and charity, the "perfection" of this contrition (charity) can be realized only by the infusion of supernatural grace/virtues; the fulness of which is found only in the sacrament or in blood martyrdom.

What we do know for certain is that no one can be justified with faith, charity and intention.

There's some Fr. Scheeben theology in the above, and I think he was on the right track.

The Holy Office letter of 1949 states:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares ( Session VI, chap. 8 ): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (<Denzinger>, n. 801).

Of course, as I have stated, I have issues with "implicit desire," but if the Holy Office is correct in the above paragraph, perfect charity would be required absent of sacramental Baptism in Water even in the presence of explicit desire.

Jehanne wrote:
Of course, as I have stated, I have issues with "implicit desire," but if the Holy Office is correct in the above paragraph, perfect charity would be required absent of sacramental Baptism in Water even in the presence of explicit desire.

Yes, my point being there is no definition for "perfect charity" beyond having an ardent love of God and a sincere contrition. God knows a perfect charity when He sees/hears it. My bet is that the habit of faith and the sacramental seal enable the Baptized to have a greater love, and a more sincere contrition for having squandered such a great gift.

There are various grades of "perfection" - that's all I was saying.

MRyan wrote:*** BUMP***

Columba, I never received a reply to this post except by way of your standard response to Jehanne where you said:

I do not believe in pre-Baptismal justification because no one can be justified outside the Church and no one at all can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

For the sake of brevity, let's begin the post here with this critical issue:

columba wrote:
Spare me the lesson Mike. I've studied Gaelic, French and some Spanish and what you say is true of many languages. The point is, the word “Without” conveys the true meaning in Session 6, Ch.4 and in a clearer way than “Except through,” especially with the inclusion of John 3:5 dispelling any doubt.

No, I will not spare you the lesson, for you are clearly wrong. You are simply mistaken in your assumption about John 3:5 and the intent of the Fathers, and your linguistic studies did not prepare you to be able recognize the grammatical rules and nuances of Medieval Latin ... and that's just a fact, as your amateurish attempt at a "common sense" translation reveals.

As a professional Medieval Latinsit informed me:

Aut is the strongest disjunction in the Latin language, of all the various disjunctions: aut, vel, sive, etc. Hence why medieval grammarians called it the coniunctio disiunctiva, not the coniunctio subdisiunctiva, or anything else.

If the Fathers of Trent did indeed mean 'or' than there would be no other way to phrase the point without introducing a lengthy periphrasis which would be entirely out of the economical style typical of and proper to the ecclesiastical language.

If the Father did intend a conjuntive meaning, "and," there are many other ways they could have said it and they are guilty of a very bad and informal Latin.

Let me stress once again: there is no other way to phrase this line to make the disiunctive stronger. At the same time, if they intended a conjunctive, there are numerous other ways they could have said.

It is therefore philologically reckless to read this aut as an 'and.'

Second, as to the question of ambiguity, there is none - Either the Father's meant 'or' (as I have shown to be likely) or they meant 'and' (very unlikely) but I bet you that you cannot find a single instance in the Latin language of any period where an author chooses the word 'aut' in order to express an ambiguity between a conjunction and a disjunction.

Furthermore, and more to the point, like you, I once tried to argue:

"Now, the previous example from Session Six Ch. 4 contains a negative ["sine"] which would seem to have to be distributed over the disjunction "Aut". "Sine" means "Without", and the entire passage is in the negative in describing what cannot be lacking for justification: meaning - neither water baptism nor the vow/desire for it can be lacking. No?

NO! The response:

sorry, but in Latin sine is not a negative, even if in English we translate it with one. For the rule to apply you need a genuine negative particle, like non, neque, nec, etc.

Did you catch that, columba? You are making the same mistake I once did by making false assumptions. The problem is that we are not equipped to handle such complexities of translation with our little Latin-English dictionaries and our understanding of the rules of English grammar.

If "sine" is often translated as "except through", it is because (I would guess) the translators wanted to convey the true sense of "sine" and "aut" that "without" does not necessarily convey. And as we can see with your dictionary translation and false assumption, they were perfectly justified in doing so.

As the professional Medievel Latinist (and traditional Catholic) said:

... these rules are difficult, and there is no grammar book in English (or any other for that matter) that can spell out all the rules for you. You just have to spend many years reading Latin texts (a course, by the way, that I would heartily recommend: to put the study of theologia before the study of grammatica is to invert the Christian model of education).

Will you learn the lesson?

Mike.
Back to this translation issue.
I am not qualified to refute or agree with what you have written concerning the correct translation but I give way to your superior knowledge concerning the intricacies of Latin grammar. My argument however doesn't hinge on the "or" or "and" or even on the "except through" vs "without." Either translation could be used in support of your stance or mine depending on how one perceives Trent 6-4 in relation to already defined dogma..

If you can reconcile the entrance of a soul into God's kingdom who has not received the water of regeneration with the words of Christ on the necessity of the water, then you have achieved what I cannot achieve.
Put it this way; if you believe the words of Our Lord that none can enter without being reborn of water and the spirit (notice He did not say water "or" the spirit) and still maintain that some enter without the water, then it renders Our Lord's words meaningless, thus, Trent states that these words are to be understood as they are written and thus, revealing the true meaning of the preceding sentance containg the words, "Baptism or the desire thereoff."

I agree with you that the Church teaches/proposes through the CCC that baptism of desire is possible and does so in direct contradiction to what she correctly establishes concerning the necessity of water Baptism in the paragraphs immediately preceding the baptism of desire statement.
This I believe is an error (a grave error). My belief is not based on my own fallible judgement (as you would often state) but on the words of Our Lord and those confirming words in Trent 6-4.
That this is not taught infallibly gives me enough room to accept that the Church has not erred infallibly, (for then, she would not be the true Church) and thus I can give the B o D (that's benefit of doubt btw) that the Post Conciliar Church can still be the true Church.

I believe (as does Trent) that John 3:5 is to be taken as written. You believe that it is not. Therin lies the crux of our dispute.
If one can enter the kingdom without water, our Lord's words are not true.

Columba,

It's pointless to argue with Mike; he will just come back and say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches...", and he's right, that is what the Church teaches. Point is that if Mike is "right," he is still wrong, because all that he will have proven is that Catholicism is a lie. He will quote all those "Popes, Doctors, Saints, theologians, catechisms, etc." who taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood; never mind, of course, the fact that they taught all these "other things" just as vehemently that the Church no longer teaches (i.e., "infants dieing without Baptism going to Hell," "temporal suffering in Purgatory," "burning heretics," "religious freedom," etc.); that stuff, even though it was universally believed and taught, was just "not defined" but at the same time was "not harmful to the Faith," but just needed "further development." Black becomes white, and white becomes black. In the end, for Mike, it just matters what the Church of today is teaching.

Well, "good for him," and for you, or for anyone else. If that's what Catholicism "truly" is, then it is, as far as I am concerned, a false belief system, and a product of human culture and imagination. If God truly exists, I do not believe that He could possibly be the author of such contradiction and confusion. More fodder for Dawkins and his ilk on the part of you who feel the need to "just believe."

Fortunately, alternatives exist, without the confusion and without the contradictions, having their foundation in logic, reason, and historical truth. So, "take your pick," but continuing to argue with Mike about it is pointless. You're "beating air."

Jehanne wrote:Columba,

It's pointless to argue with Mike; he will just come back and say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches...", and he's right, that is what the Church teaches. Point is that if Mike is "right," he is still wrong, because all that he will have proven is that Catholicism is a lie.

Hard to argue with such logic!

Jehanne wrote:Fortunately, alternatives exist, without the confusion and without the contradictions, having their foundation in logic, reason, and historical truth. So, "take your pick," but continuing to argue with Mike about it is pointless. You're "beating air."

Yeah, columba, get off the fence and "take your pick" between the lie of Catholicism, and the "alternative".

Somehow, I can't imagine that what is presented as the alternatives on either side of the fence is what you imagined. You'd better hang on to the fence and hope for a safer landing zone. I know where it is, but you won't believe me.

Poor Jehanne, he still cannot tell the difference between the development of reformable doctrines and infallible dogmatic truths.

Pity; but at least he can cry on the sympathetic shoulder of the atheist, Dawkins.

Jehanne wrote:
Columba,

It's pointless to argue with Mike; he will just come back and say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches...", and he's right, that is what the Church teaches.

It may look pointless arguing but I live in hope that one of us (either Mike or myself) will be granted a Divine bolt of light that will convince either one of us of the error of our ways.
I believe the Church more presumes than teaches baptism of desire for her language is very unclear this past 50 yrs or so. Like St Pius X said, *One can take it in its orthodox sense and another can take it in it's hetrodox sense (and yes, I know we are meant to hold the culprit to the heretical sense).

Point is that if Mike is "right," he is still wrong, because all that he will have proven is that Catholicism is a lie.

That's what makes me so sure that he is wrong

He will quote all those "Popes, Doctors, Saints, theologians, catechisms, etc." who taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood; never mind, of course, the fact that they taught all these "other things" just as vehemently that the Church no longer teaches (i.e., "infants dieing without Baptism going to Hell," "temporal suffering in Purgatory," "burning heretics," "religious freedom," etc.); that stuff, even though it was universally believed and taught, was just "not defined" but at the same time was "not harmful to the Faith," but just needed "further development." Black becomes white, and white becomes black. In the end, for Mike, it just matters what the Church of today is teaching.

The fact that the Church since Vat II has taught nothing infallibly (in fact she has presumed a lot speculatively but taught absolutely diddly squat) allows for the possibility that she is experiencing a mere crisis rather than an apostacy.
For example; No one is bound by any church law to believe or partake in inter-religious services, nor, I believe, is anyone required to believe that baptism of desire is de fide; nor is anyone required by a command of the Church to adhere to the doctrine of universal salvation and accept that other false religions are salvific. The fact that we cannot have this debate with BXVI is quite a pitty.

Well, "good for him," and for you, or for anyone else. If that's what Catholicism "truly" is, then it is, as far as I am concerned, a false belief system, and a product of human culture and imagination. If God truly exists, I do not believe that He could possibly be the author of such contradiction and confusion. More fodder for Dawkins and his ilk on the part of you who feel the need to "just believe."

There is still (in my view) enough benefit of doubt to hang on in there. I don't think we will ever get that 100% proof (as that is not how modernists work. They work by cunning and insinuation). Never will they declare such things as, "The Church now believes that sodomy is a natural and good act and is not sinful." or, " "The Church now accepts that the male priesthood is not of Divine origin." Nothing like that will ever happen IMHO, but even getting close to that could be all the proof one needs. I'd imagine before that could happen, divine retribution would come to the rescue.

Fortunately, alternatives exist, without the confusion and without the contradictions, having their foundation in logic, reason, and historical truth. So, "take your pick," but continuing to argue with Mike about it is pointless. You're "beating air."

No matter what position one takes there will always be a certain doubt that one may not have chosen correctly. As long as one chooses in conformity with the dictates of ones own conscience then according to the CCC, that will absolve you of any blame even if you choose wrongly. In the meantime, that article posted by Tornpage on tolerance is worth keeping in mind.

Beating air can exercise virtue, particularly that of patience. (I wonder is stubbourness its opposite) but never let it be said that Mike has more patience than me.

Columba,


You do say some very profound things in your last post. I almost can sense what you are not saying between the lines. Most everything else that you say is out of the pain and the hurt that you feel. To many Catholics things do seem almost turned upside down. I had a discussion just two days ago and was told that Happy and Blessed mean the exact same thing.... Really ? Columba, I would like to comment in particular to one of your phrases.


Columba's partial Quote:



"The fact that the Church since Vat II has taught nothing infallibly (in fact she has presumed a lot speculatively but taught absolutely diddly squat) allows for the possibility that she (The Church) is experiencing a mere crisis rather than an apostacy. Lets eliminate just for the sake of discussion everything you posted except the phrase " allows for the possibilty that she is experiencing a mere crisis rather than an apostacy" Now without your permission let me insert the word severe for " mere " or it now would read:

......allows for the possibilty that The Church is experiencing a severe crisis rather than an apostacy.


I know this phrase is accurate for many reasons and pray with complete Charity what I say below might make it a little easier for you to bear.


This very forum all by itself demonstrates the crisis of Faith. Roll the clock back fifty years and probably almost all of us here are sharing ideas on how to help the poor, visit the sick, workshops, Rosary groups etc etc...


Almost every post including news releases touches on the crisis.


I really find that I cannot get angry with any of you because all I ever read is the hurt you feel and thus you lash out in frustration. Our faith is in a Crisis of confusion done cleverly in part by the enemies of the Catholic Church.


How about the first Crisis in the Church? The Son of God, Jesus tells the first Pope, Peter that you will deny me three times. Peter says, no way. Not only does Peter say that he does not know the man but it is the manner in which he does it. Jesus forgives Peter and pronounces the words we all know. Now that was the ultimate crisis of Faith. The Priest that I report to told me that tradition has it that Saint Peter had deep trough lines in his cheeks from crying so much for hurting Jesus.


No names. No names. Judge not lest you be Judged; and we will be ! But can you not almost inagine throughout Church history the words, What have you done to My Church been spoken to lay people and religious.


As Our Faith suffers in this current crisis We must pick up our own Cross and participate in the cure not be part of the problem. As Jesus said, could you not watch and stay with me for one hour; can we not watch and stay for one lifetime. This crisis will pass.

I read your posts, George, and I feel like I am watching an episode of "Dr. Phil."

Perhaps most people will simply end-up in Hell; ultimately, "What is, is." If you visit my blog, you will see that I am now a T.O. member of the Saint Benedict Center. Our message is simple, "Convert to the One True Faith and One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved." Now, Mike, who just got done writing this really long convoluted post will try to convince you that, "Well, he doesn't acknowledge the Pope's jurisdiction, and therefore, is a schismatic, heretic, etc., because Vatican I said that the Church will have a Vicar until the end of the World, therefore, it is impossible that the Chair of Peter could ever be tainted with heresy, la de da de da..." Well, I beg to differ, as I believe that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio expresses divine and positive law that the Pope, who is a human being, still has free will, and as such, can choose to embrace heresy (which, in Latin, means choice.) Mike, will, of course, say that the dogmas which I believe to be infallible (infants dieing without Baptism going to Hell) are, in fact, reformable, and there's the "conflict" (not so much for me, as for him.) So, in "reforming" the irreformable, the Pope has, from my perspective at least, embraced material heresy, and as a consequence, has lost at least some of the jurisdiction of his office. In other words, as Catholics, we don't owe him obedience, even though he is still Pope. He can, of course, correct matters, using the Keys which our Lord gave him. If and when he does that, Mike will have no choice but to obey him!

Mike is willing to tolerate my position (under the "Big Tent" of Catholicism); I am, however, not willing to tolerate his.

Jehanne wrote:
Mike is willing to tolerate my position (under the "Big Tent" of Catholicism); I am, however, not willing to tolerate his.

Who cares what you are willing to "tolerate"? Like you, if I had my way you and your filthy mouth would have been banned from this forum a long time ago.

This is rich; after telling us that Br. Andre would not accept a sedevacantist as a T.O. tertiary, you are now an official member of a religious organization that professes communion with the Pope.

What a spectacle.

Let's be clear, your sedeprivasionist position is just as heretical as full blown sedeism, and even more schismatic since you refuse communion with the man you recognize as Christ's valid Vicar on earth.

"Tolerate" that.

If you haven't guessed, this is a Feeneyite forum, which means that Rasha is on my side, not yours ("dumbass.")

" Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum)
The owner of this forum submits to the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, current Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church "

Requirements of Membership
(http://sai.catholicism.org/faqs/a-membership/)

Members of the Third Order of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are ordinarily lay people, men or women, married or single, who consecrate their lives and make a promise of obedience to the leadership of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center. This promise is binding only in matters pertaining to the conduct of the Crusade. The third order is also open to clergy and religious, who meet the terms of membership stated below.

Every member of the third order must:

1. Be a confirmed, practicing Catholic, age 15 or over, in union with the Holy See.

5. Make a simple promise of obedience to the superior of the order in all matters directly affecting the Crusade.

The “Holy See” is Pope Benedict XVI.

Jehanne wrote: “as Catholics, we don't owe him obedience, even though he is still Pope” and “If I thought that the Pope was a true Pope, then, yes, like Mike, I would owe him obedience”, and “So, yes, the Pope holds they Keys; he's just not using them, and until he does, I want nothing to do with him. Call me what you will -- sede, schismatic, disobedient, conscientious objector, etc. Those are all just ‘labels’."

Jehanne wrote:
Mike, will, of course, say that the dogmas which I believe to be infallible (infants dieing without Baptism going to Hell) are, in fact, reformable, and there's the "conflict" (not so much for me, as for him.) So, in "reforming" the irreformable, the Pope has, from my perspective at least, embraced material heresy, and as a consequence, has lost at least some of the jurisdiction of his office. In other words, as Catholics, we don't owe him obedience, even though he is still Pope. He can, of course, correct matters, using the Keys which our Lord gave him. If and when he does that, Mike will have no choice but to obey him!

The Pope cannot lose “some of his jurisdiction”, and it is not yours to give or to take away. Since you have no reply on the sede sub-forum where I exposed your heresy, consider this, from VCI, The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

In other words, anathema sit!

And since when has the Church ever taught that a Pope could lose his supreme Apostolic Primacy over the universal Church for “material heresy” when material heresy is NOT heresy, but an innocent error?

And imagine accusing a Pope of “material heresy” (innocent error) for proposing to the universal Church an erroneous doctrine on a matter of salvation that allegedly stands in blatant heretical opposition to an “irreformable” dogma of the Faith!

Gee, I guess Popes JPII and BXVI didn’t know any better because they were not familiar with the dogmas of the Church and just didn’t realize that it is a dogma of faith that our Lord has bound Himself exclusively to water baptism for removing the stain of original sin from infants.

This is the same argument that columba proposes for promoting his errant “dogma” that the Council of Trent infallibly declared in Session 6 Ch. 4 that no one can be justified (let alone saved) without regeneration in water baptism because “as it is written, unless a man be born again ….”, thereby completely ignoring the true understanding of the dogmatic text “as it is written” and as it is understood and proclaimed time and time again by the Church, by tradition and by the universal consensus of popes, saints, Doctors, scholastics and theologians, not one of whom can columba bring forward to corroborate his false “interpretation”; NOT A SINGLE ONE.

And, like Jehanne, he has the audacity to say that if all of this is true and their pet theories are said to be false, than all of this proves only “that Catholicism is a lie.”

Pure hubris.

Back to Jehanne, who said the dogma of “no hope” is “de fide”, and any pope who doesn’t toe the line loses his supreme authority over the Church; but Jehanne will re-instate the pope’s supreme Apostolic authority when he finally solemnly “defines” (with an authority he does not possess except, apparently, in emergencies, or until Jehanne gives it back to him) the true doctrines as Jehanne defines them.

I swear I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Jehanne is saying that it is an irrefornable dogma of faith that our Lord cannot and/or will not provide the grace of Baptism to unbaptized infants except through water Baptism.

This is the same person who said that the doctrine that has unbaptized infants suffering the fires of hell for all eternity is “infallible” and thus, irreformable. Just think of all those “materially heretical” popes throughout the ages (all of them since the middle ages) who taught that unbaptized infants do not suffer the torments of hell fire.

This is the same person who said that an implicit desire for baptism and for subjection to the Roman Pontiff that does not turn “explicit” before death is “formal heresy”; thereby accusing Sts. Aquinas and Liguori, the VCI Commission “de fide”, and not to mention Pope Pius IX, VCII, etc. etc., as well as the 1949 Holy Letter, of formal heresy (but only "materially", of course).

And this is the same person who said that the explicit and positive act of willing to do all that God requires (that may include the implicit desire for Baptism and being subject to the Roman Pontiff) denies free will, and is thus formally heretical.

Yes, this is the same “Third Order M.I.C.M member”, who vowed to maintain unity with the Holy See of Pope Benedict XVI, who said “Stop quoting Tradition, Mike; you don't agree with it, neither does your heretic ‘Pope’" and “If I thought that the Pope was a true Pope, then, yes, like Mike, I would owe him obedience”, and “I want nothing to do with him."

This is the “Third Order M.I.C.M. member” who calls me a “dumbass”, an “ignorant dope”, a “jerk, a “prick”, a “liar”, a “heretic” and who said “I can just see the existentialist feces dripping from your mouth”.

You are a disgrace to the M.I.C.M., and to this forum. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would resign from the Third Order immediately.

But feel free to run your gutter mouth all you want; this forum has no moderation whatsoever.

You're an "uninvited guest" who has "overstayed his welcome" and just will not go away. I am on the Sacred-Hearts yahoo mailing list run by Warren Goddard, and I doubt very much that Warren would even approve your request to join that list. As for this board, it is a Feeneyite board and not a place for you to "bash Feeneyism" or try and dissuade individuals from becoming "Feeneyites." In the end, people can make-up their own minds, which is why I do not allow comments on my blog; likewise, the Saint Benedict Center moderates comments to their blogs. (People can hear one argument from one source, then another from a different source, and decide for themselves.) If you don't agree with us, fine; you are free to open your own message board at the "free forums" website or somewhere else.

As for your other verbage above and in the above thread, I made my position clear long ago -- Cum ex Apostolatus Officio represents divine and positivie law:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

Vatican I did not change Cum ex Apostolatus Officio nor could it; it's infallible and irreformable. I know that you may disagree, and that's fine.

As for all the "name calling," you were the one who "started it." Try to remember the Golden Rule when positing on Internet message boards.

As for my "boss," he knows my views; they are all on my blog. He can give me "da boot" whenever he wants; until then, I am staying in the group/clique.

MRyan,

God Bless you

You have more than gone beyond the call for love and charity; some issues can only possibly be resolved in the silence of prayer.

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen -"

Mike, you are a true devoted Catholic in every sense of the word.

JMJ,

Your Friend,

George

Jehanne wrote:I am on the Sacred-Hearts yahoo mailing list run by Warren Goddard, and I doubt very much that Warren would even approve your request to join that list.

Good for you. Warren sends me mailing list stuff and private emails -- and we are old friends who obviously disagree on several issues. But it wasn't always so.

Unfortunately, Warren has accepted the discredited "justification by water baptism alone" theory, and I know exactly when and how this took place ... I was there. I was a member of the Sacred-Heart Forum (the first forum I ever joined) for quite some time (which was started by Mike Malone and Pete Vere).

So please don't tell me what Warren would approve or wouldn't approve when it comes to me - you have no idea what you are talking about; but then again, you never do.

As I said, you are a disgrace to the Third Order, and I know several members who would be shocked to learn that you were allowed to join.

You should resign.

Jehanne wrote:
As for this board, it is a Feeneyite board and not a place for you to "bash Feeneyism" or try and dissuade individuals from becoming "Feeneyites."

This forum welcomes me as much as it welcomes any hard-core Feeneyite. There is no "litmus test" to join and there is no definition for "Feeneyite". If you're the prototype, I can guarantee you that most people on this forum would renounce any such affiliation.

And I don't "bash" Feeneyism; I expose its errors to the light -- and engage in spirited debates. If you don't like it, tough. If you can't handle the light, go away and spread your noxious heretical darkness elsewhere.

And what unmitigated gall it takes to sit there and tell us that the Vicar of Christ is not the "true" Pope and that you are not in communion with the valid "heretic pope" who has lost all or most of his Apostolic Primacy; and then tell us with a straight face that you have vowed to remain in communion with the Holy See of Pope BXVI as a Third Order tertiary, M.I.C.M.

What a piece of work.

You are a pompous lying jerk.

I and Warren have discussed "you" at some length, and no, you are "not welcome" on his list. As a matter of fact, I get the impression that you got "da boot." I have also gotten (courtesy of Jim) some of your "old emails" from your old "Feeneyite days," and I must say that your arguments were "convincing," but not as convincing as mine. Go ahead and email Brother Andre yourself if you are so concerned about me being a T.O. of M.I.C.M. As I said, my views are public, for the whole world to see, and I have emailed Brother Andre my blog web address numerous times (along with a few articles from my blog directly), as I have done with several other of the Brothers at the Saint Benedict Center. So, they know what I profess and believe.

According to the Dimond brothers, you were also "once upon a time" a sede; they do not want to come here, because they say that it is a waste of their time, but they want you to call them on their 800 number. Are you afraid of wasting "another 20 minutes" of your precious time?

Jehanne,

Even before this latest exchange between you & Mike I have wondered what is going on with you.

Perhaps my memory fails me (I haven't been on here consistently), but were you on Pascendi's forum? Or did you first come along when Rasha (are you still alive, Rasha?) opened this one? I only remember you from this forum. I have to say that I have noticed your posts becoming progressively more bitter and angry the last several months. (Rejecting the Pope doesn't help). In any event I am concerned for you and for the state of your eternal soul. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, Don, and the things that you unhesitatingly write and declare about Pope Benedict and the hatred you appear to have for Mike (and the last several Popes) is troublesome to say the least. It is not the work of God, what you are doing Jehanne. For the love of God and Our Lady, please stop, step back from the hornet's nest and spend some time in humble prayer.

I am sure that you will have some "colorful" things to say to me, but so be it. Please know that I am praying for you and for your family.

Well, perhaps you need to read more. I was never on Pascendi's forum, never heard of him/her.

I do not care how Mike is treating me; what is making me angry, progressively so, is how Mike is treating other people. Perhaps they are too timid, nice, and/or holy to stand up for themselves. I will, however, "call a spade, a spade." It is Mike who has "set the tone" for these discussions, not me. While I can only read a minority of the posts on this board, I know how to respond to a bully, no matter how young or old that person may be.

As for the Pope, I do not care, honestly, I do not. The Truths of the Catholicism are, for me at least, like the axioms of arithmetic, absolutely immutable. The fact that Pope Benedict and his predecessor taught 2+2=5 on some occasions and 2+2=100 at other times does not trouble me in the slightest. Mike, of course, sees no contradiction between the present and the past; I do, and as Mike has posted here recently, others do as well.

Can Pope Benedict correct all this before our Lord comes at the end of the World? Sure, absolutely, he has free will and he alone holds the Keys. Perhaps on his deathbed, he will see the Light; that's what you should be praying for. Please do not worry about me; I am okay, but my three cats keep crapping on my basement floor, which, like Mike's treatment of others, is also irritating and sometimes frustrating.

Jehanne wrote:You are a pompous lying jerk.

And you wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face. I guarantee it. You are an internet coward, a pompous blowhard and a fraud.

Jehanne wrote:I and Warren have discussed "you" at some length, and no, you are "not welcome" on his list.

That's what I thought. I am the "subject" of discussion and you've got me all figured out. Let us know if you come up with any more dirt. But I'm glad to hear that your friends the Dimonds think I'd be a waste of their time, the feelings are mutual. But, I haven't gone anywhere and anyone who wants to debate me knows where they can find me (not that anyone is looking). I could accomplish nothing in 20 minutes, or in three hours, as it would only have the same outcome as the last 20 minute conversation we had - and it wasn't pretty.

And I don't care that I am not welcome on Warren's "list". But someone should tell Warren to stop sending me stuff if he wants nothing to do with me. In fact, the last thing he sent me was Kelly's article with some commentary by others-- little did he know that Kelly simply repeated without corroboration one of the favorite Feeneyite myths.

Jehanne wrote:As a matter of fact, I get the impression that you got "da boot."

I left the forum voluntarily.

I have also gotten (courtesy of Jim) some of your "old emails" from your old "Feeneyite days," and I must say that your arguments were "convincing," but not as convincing as mine.

One simply has to go to AQ to see my old Feeneyite arguments. But what an arrogant and pompous thing to say. You've had your head handed to you on this forum and everyone knows it. You got, as they, say, "nutt'in"; and your ecclesiology is as intellectually bankrupt as your theology.

Jehanne wrote:Go ahead and email Brother Andre yourself if you are so concerned about me being a T.O. of M.I.C.M. As I said, my views are public, for the whole world to see, and I have emailed Brother Andre my blog web address numerous times (along with a few articles from my blog directly), as I have done with several other of the Brothers at the Saint Benedict Center. So, they know what I profess and believe.

You only just recently announced your sede position, but, since you obviously do not have the integrity or the guts to tell your superior, you expect Br. Andre to figure this for himself out by reading your silly blog (and what arrogance to think anyone of note actually reads it); and until then, you really do not care that you took a vow to remain in communion with the Holy See of Pope BXVI.

That says all we need to know about you.

But you don't have to worry about me emailing Br. Andre, unlike you and your "discussions" about me with others, outside of this forum you are of absolutely no concern to me whatsoever. And no, I don't waste my time reading your pathetic "blog".

I've wasted too much time on these BS tangential and irrelevant issues already. Its time to get back to debating doctrinal truth and to exposing your specious errors to the light of truth.

All I know is what Google tells me -- my blog is getting a dozen to three dozen hits a day, all over the World. By the way, I know something about "Internet search engines" (having worked professionally in that area.) "Hits matter," so webpages can "snowball," which means that the more hits you get (assuming, of course, that you are not a "black-hatter"/"mad-hatter," in which case Google/Bing are going to "bust you"), your webpage can "soar" through the search engine ratings. (Everyone, of course, wants to be on "Page 1," which is what the black hatters try to do.) This is what I am starting to see on my blog; first, things were slow, but now things are starting to pick-up, so I know that people are interested.

As for this board, my participation here is winding down, although, I intend to keep reading things for quite some time to come; maybe, I will post again, maybe not.

Our differences come down to this:

1) You believe that the 260+ Popes and their Magisteriums have not contradicted each other in their Authentic Magisteriums; you only see legitimate "development of doctrine."

2) I believe that the Popes and general councils have contradicted each other.

I have a lot support for #2, not only from traditional Catholics but from liberal ones, also, along with Protestants, Orthodox, Islamic, secular, etc., scholarship.

I will certainly explore this issue more at a future date. Excellent article that you posted, by the way, from that Presbyterian scholar, who, as you should know, has a PhD.

All the best, Mike, and take care. I apologize for the tone of the conversation; things did get out of hand, more on your part than on my mine (although, I am sure that you will not see things that way), so please try and at least be civil towards the others on this board. If I see you mistreating people, especially, newcomers, I will probably "chime in" to tell them what I "know."

I look forward to your debate with the Dimonds.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:You are a pompous lying jerk.

And you wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face. I guarantee it. You are an internet coward, a pompous blowhard and a fraud.

My apologies to the forum for the last part; and for descending into the same nasty pit Jehanne likes to wallow in.

Jehanne wrote: As for this board, my participation here is winding down, although, I intend to keep reading things for quite some time to come; maybe I will post again, maybe not.

Our differences come down to this:

1) You believe that the 260+ Popes and their Magisteriums have not contradicted each other in their Authentic Magisteriums; you only see legitimate "development of doctrine."

That, of course, is a gross distortion of what I said and believe. Doctrinal matters pertaining to non-revealed reformable teachings that are taught in one age (e.g., sense suffering for unbaptized infants) and reformed (developed) in another age (no sense suffering) are not “contradictions” to divine or de fide truths. They are in contradiction to each other; yes, but neither can be harmful to the Faith precisely because they are non-revealed reformable doctrines. That’s what “development” means.

“Development” also pertains to points of doctrine not otherwise defined, such as the Church’s development of the doctrine on the Mystical Body and the possibility of being united to the Body by means other than material or formal incorporation. These represent “legitimate developments of doctrine" where you see only corruption and contradiction. As such, your ecclesiology and theology are seriously flawed.

Jehanne wrote: 2) I believe that the Popes and general councils have contradicted each other.

Not on matters of revealed or definitive truths. Never.

Jehanne wrote: I have a lot support for #2, not only from traditional Catholics but from liberal ones, also, along with Protestants, Orthodox, Islamic, secular, etc., scholarship.

What a wholly un-Catholic line of reasoning to “prove” that the Church has contradicted herself with respect to irreformable Truths. One thing you have proven on this forum is that you have an incredibly shallow grasp of what makes a doctrine “de fide”.

Jehanne wrote: I will certainly explore this issue more at a future date. Excellent article that you posted, by the way, from that Presbyterian scholar, who, as you should know, has a PhD.

Well, a PhD is very important when making the discredited and false argument that the Church has “changed” her dogmatic teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or any of her other irreformable truths. Martin Luther had one of those as well, in Sacred Theology. But it is not surprising that you find the Presbyterian's, “along with” the arguments of “Protestants, Orthodox, Islamic, secular” and liberal scholars, entirely credible.

We anxiously await your own scholarly contribution that validates the claims of the Church’s enemies. Perhaps something from the atheist Richard Dawkins (another PhD), who has nothing but nice things to say about you, would be apropos.

George Brenner wrote: MRyan,

God Bless you

You have more than gone beyond the call for love and charity; some issues can only possibly be resolved in the silence of prayer.

As you can see, George, I am entirely all too human, and a sinner.

George Brenner wrote:Mike, you are a true devoted Catholic in every sense of the word.

I can only aspire to and pray that I can live up to such words.

Thank you for your kindness and encouragement.

You've been a breath of fresh Catholic air to this forum.

Your Friend,

Mike