It is currently Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:44 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
 Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance? 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Here is a new objection I received in regards to BOB/D.
Quote:
According to St. Alphonsus bob/bod suffices for the sacrament of Penance, not baptism. He references Session 14, chapter 4 of Trent on Penance.
Penance is a necessity of precept. Baptism is a necessity of means.


Can someone please respond to this?


Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
Here is a new objection I received in regards to BOB/D.
Quote:
According to St. Alphonsus bob/bod suffices for the sacrament of Penance, not baptism. He references Session 14, chapter 4 of Trent on Penance.
Penance is a necessity of precept. Baptism is a necessity of means.


Can someone please respond to this?


Did this person quote St. Alphonsus?

BTW, both Baptism and Penance are necessary with necessity of means, not just precept.

Suprema haec Sacra says:

Quote:
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807).

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Here is a response that I got from a friend who gave me something off the top of his head because he had to do something else but it sounds right on:

Quote:
In fact, it sounds like a Feeneyite desperately trying to explain away St. Alphonsus. It’s called *Baptism* of Desire, not Penance of Desire.

Of course baptism is necessary by necessity of means — but it’s a hypothetical necessity of means, not an absolute necessity of means. (These are the technical terms employed by theologians on that.) Meaning it can be supplied in certain cases because the necessity arises only from the positive will of God, not from any intrinsic reason.

Also, I am quite certain that to say that Penance is necessary only by necessity of precept is definitely false. But that sounds like something a Feeneyite would say. Reception of the Holy Eucharist - THAT is necessary by necessity of precept. But not penance.


I had heard about a "relative" necessity of means and an "absolute" necessity of means. Also "hypothetical" necessity of means also sounds like a term a theologian who is able to make the distinctions the Feeneyites seem unable to make use. Can anyone explain the different types of "necessity of means" to me? I'm supposing "hypothetical" and "relative" are used in much the same way.


Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
I had heard about a "relative" necessity of means and an "absolute" necessity of means. Also "hypothetical" necessity of means also sounds like a term a theologian who is able to make the distinctions the Feeneyites seem unable to make use. Can anyone explain the different types of "necessity of means" to me? I'm supposing "hypothetical" and "relative" are used in much the same way.


Necessity of precept: something is necessary in this way in such a way that you only lose your end (in this case Beatific Vision) if, being aware of it, you don´t do or receive it. In other words if you don´t know about this precept you can still get the end.

Necessity of means: You absolutely need it in order to get the end (Beatific Vision).

Now, this necessity is twofold:

a) Intrinsic necessity: such as charity, and you must have it in act.

b) By divine disposition: That is, that thing is necessary with necessity of means only because God willed so, for instance: baptism, penance. This kind of necessity may be obtained only by a desire (either explicit or even implicit).

This is all in the Suprema haec sacra and masterly explained by Fenton.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
If it helps, here is everything I could find of St. Alphonsus de Liguori's writings on BOB and BOD. These quotes can be found at this link, along with many others: http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97 wrote:
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain
privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood -translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
------------------
*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. Theologia Moralis. Tomus Quintus
. Arranged by Heilig P. Mich., C.Ss.R. Mechliniae, 1845. <https://archive.org/details/theologiamorali02heilgoog>
*Translation: < http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html>

Theologia Moralis, Lib.III, Cap 1, Q. 2 wrote:
2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel? The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. Cum Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries. So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses. Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…

Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this
opinion…

Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts
10:35 says, “But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.”

They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…
----------------
*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. Theologia Moralis. Tomus Secundus.
Arranged by Heilig, P. Mich., C.Ss.R. Mechliniae, 1845. <https://archive.org/details/theologiamorali06heilgoog>
*Translation: <www.romancatholicism.org/ibranyi-books.html>

An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; Along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, commentary on sess.VII, can.IV wrote:
11. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto).

13. Soave says that at least the implicit desire of Baptism (the same holds for penance in regards to sinners) appeared to many of the fathers not to be necessary for justification: because Cornelius and the good thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism. But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave: for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defence of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel. Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution. 14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.

14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments
--------------
*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers. Dublin, 1846.
Posted by “Ambrose” on <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29637>


Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
Here is a new objection I received in regards to BOB/D.
Quote:
According to St. Alphonsus bob/bod suffices for the sacrament of Penance, not baptism. He references Session 14, chapter 4 of Trent on Penance.
Penance is a necessity of precept. Baptism is a necessity of means.


Can someone please respond to this?


Did the Dimonds come up with this?

They have an article on St. Alphonsus' "blatant error" on this, is that where this came from?


Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Iugiter wrote:
Mario Looch wrote:
Here is a new objection I received in regards to BOB/D.
Quote:
According to St. Alphonsus bob/bod suffices for the sacrament of Penance, not baptism. He references Session 14, chapter 4 of Trent on Penance.
Penance is a necessity of precept. Baptism is a necessity of means.


Can someone please respond to this?


Did the Dimonds come up with this?

They have an article on St. Alphonsus' "blatant error" on this, is that where this came from?


Thank you Christian Jacob and Joe Cupertino for your responses!

I'm not sure if the Dimonds came up with it or not. But my friend who provided the quote, who I believe is more knowledgeable than I, overall, in theology, and in whom I am in no doubt of his good will, did. This is one area where he seems to lack. It is amazing how incredibly stuck in this one error everyone can get and the lengths they go to come up with their herculean excuses for accepting the error and denying the truth despite the onslaught of evidence to the contrary.

I keep being reminded not to judge others who appear willfully blind because I'm pretty sure my friend is not.

What is the reason for a knowledgeable person who is able to make distinctions on other issues to hold so tenaciously to this error? Does anyone have any ideas?

To be clear I'm 100% convinced BOD/B is authoritatively and infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. I'm not playing devil's advocate here.


Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Iugiter wrote:
Mario Looch wrote:
Here is a new objection I received in regards to BOB/D.
Quote:
According to St. Alphonsus bob/bod suffices for the sacrament of Penance, not baptism. He references Session 14, chapter 4 of Trent on Penance.
Penance is a necessity of precept. Baptism is a necessity of means.


Can someone please respond to this?


Did the Dimonds come up with this?

They have an article on St. Alphonsus' "blatant error" on this, is that where this came from?


"St. Alphonsus' blatant error". Incredible. So Saint Alponsus makes an error that is incredibly obvious but the brothers got it right. Do people really fall for that tripe?


Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:05 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
"St. Alphonsus' blatant error". Incredible. So Saint Alponsus makes an error that is incredibly obvious but the brothers got it right. Do people really fall for that tripe?


Yes, that is correct. I quoted them from memory, and I was correct, that's exactly what they wrote.

Here is a pic:

Image


Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Iugiter wrote:
Mario Looch wrote:
"St. Alphonsus' blatant error". Incredible. So Saint Alponsus makes an error that is incredibly obvious but the brothers got it right. Do people really fall for that tripe?


Yes, that is correct. I quoted them from memory, and I was correct, that's exactly what they wrote.

Here is a pic:

Image


I can't see the picture. But the Dimonds are a piece of work. They lead so many astray with half truths and even 3/4 truth. Very sad. The ones the Novus Ordo Church doesn't get they steal.


Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
Mario Looch wrote:
"St. Alphonsus' blatant error". Incredible. So Saint Alponsus makes an error that is incredibly obvious but the brothers got it right. Do people really fall for that tripe?


Yes, that is correct. I quoted them from memory, and I was correct, that's exactly what they wrote.

Here is a pic:

Image


I can't see the picture.


Did you click on it?


Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Quote:
Did you click on it?


Yes. My computer blocked it.


Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
Yes. My computer blocked it.


Oh well. It's still visible though, the title and "Bro. Peter Dimond".


Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Thanks. I pulled up the article. The picture was not there. The brothers supposedly wear the brown scapular, pray the Rosary daily and study the faith alot. I asked a good Priest how they could be so wrong on things. His answer. "Pride". I suppose we cannot know the answer for sure but he might be on to something. It is easy for us to get full of ourselves. But it takes some doing to get to the point where you speak of Saint Alphonsus' blatant error. Quite a feat for untrained theologians to figure out. Remarkable actually. It is hard to figure out how all the other Saints and Doctors could not see what the brothers have been gifted to see.


Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Mario Looch wrote:
Thanks. I pulled up the article. The picture was not there.


What are you talking about here?

Mario Looch wrote:
The brothers


I don't think they should be called Brothers because they're not real monks.

Mario Looch wrote:
supposedly wear the brown scapular, pray the Rosary daily and study the faith alot. I asked a good Priest how they could be so wrong on things. His answer. "Pride". I suppose we cannot know the answer for sure but he might be on to something. It is easy for us to get full of ourselves.


They violate and ignore the basic rules of theology. One of these rules is that no teaching is of merit or any value at all if it is not approved by the Church.

Well, that's exactly what they've done: make up their own "teachings" and presume to bind others under pain of damnation.

It would be interesting to ask them why they do this. Why do they ignore the most basic rules of theology, and interpret the Magisterium and Papal Decrees etc. privately and against the teaching of the Church? Why? Do they not know this is forbidden and not something a Catholic does?

Where did they get this idea? That's something I'd like to ask them but unfortunately they are bad willed and won't talk to me anymore.


Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Did you know these nuts even say that one of the titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redeemer, is heretical? Yes! They actually believe that and "decree" so.


Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:11 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
Iugiter wrote:
Did you know these nuts even say that one of the titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redeemer, is heretical? Yes! They actually believe that and "decree" so.


True heirs of Congar and his mates at Vatican II. This was one of the big subjects, and therefore big controversies. The traditionalists (i.e. the orthodox men) desired strongly to define that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces and also they wanted her title as Co-Redemptrix at least mentioned. Congar said in his diary that he was fighting this "as much as I can" and most of the usual suspects were on his side (e.g. Bea, Frings, Alfrink). The heretics won and the title "Mediatrix" was mentioned, but not defined, and the explanatory "of all graces" was carefully not added, thus emptying the title of its true meaning. Also, it was placed subsequent to "Mother of the Church," a favourite of Paul VI, an ambiguous title which was favoured by the heretics because it suggests their thesis that Our Lady is really the first member of the Church, rather than focussing on her particular unity with Christ which places her essentially above the Church.

So, the Dimonds in this case are on the side of Congar et al., and against the likes of Carli, Sigaud, Siri, Lefebvre, Ruffini, and co. If they had realised this, they would probably have been reluctant to make such geese of themselves, so I suggest that this illustrates their ignorance of pretty basic factual data.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
In December 1999 I was corresponding with Peter Dimond via snail mail over his denial of baptism of blood and desire. When I brought to his attention that Saint Alphonsus held that BOD was de fide, this was his response:

"Clearly then, baptism of desire is incompatible with these Papal pronouncements, and if St. Alphonsus were alive I would point that out to him, and he would agree, as he now agrees with us in Heaven."

Their enormous ego and pride is really to be pitied.


Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:29 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Alphonsus Belief in BOD/BOD is in Regards to Penance?
John Lane wrote:
Iugiter wrote:
Did you know these nuts even say that one of the titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redeemer, is heretical? Yes! They actually believe that and "decree" so.


True heirs of Congar and his mates at Vatican II. This was one of the big subjects, and therefore big controversies. The traditionalists (i.e. the orthodox men) desired strongly to define that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces and also they wanted her title as Co-Redemptrix at least mentioned. Congar said in his diary that he was fighting this "as much as I can" and most of the usual suspects were on his side (e.g. Bea, Frings, Alfrink). The heretics won and the title "Mediatrix" was mentioned, but not defined, and the explanatory "of all graces" was carefully not added, thus emptying the title of its true meaning. Also, it was placed subsequent to "Mother of the Church," a favourite of Paul VI, an ambiguous title which was favoured by the heretics because it suggests their thesis that Our Lady is really the first member of the Church, rather than focussing on her particular unity with Christ which places her essentially above the Church.

So, the Dimonds in this case are on the side of Congar et al., and against the likes of Carli, Sigaud, Siri, Lefebvre, Ruffini, and co. If they had realised this, they would probably have been reluctant to make such geese of themselves, so I suggest that this illustrates their ignorance of pretty basic factual data.


Don't forget that the tile of Mother of the Church was condemned by previous Popes too. I can't recall exactly who, it was either St. Pius X or Pius XI. It was around that time period, but they had good reasons to condemn it precisely because of its ambiguities. Now I know most Catholics that do use it, not alone but in conjunction with other Titles. Don't use it in the same manner it was condemned, but we should note how it is the tactic of heretics to always dwell in dangerous waters and test how far they can push something that was previously condemned.

Similar to how Roncalli passed the name of St. Joseph into the Canon, as his coup d'etat in order to introduce into the minds of the faithful that the liturgy could be changed, even the most sacrosanct part of the mass, the Canon. This was the number one thing that lead to the Novus Ordo missae, yet most people don't see the connection. We have to understand that the Vatican II apostates did everything in a sort of gradualism, because they understood that to slowly boil you works better, then to give you a full shocker where most people are already looking.

Therefore they generally introduced novelty, in areas that would generally be ignored and then slowly but surely, show their real colors. To understand Vatican II, one cannot divorce the men who promulgated the Council. To read it according to the light of tradition, is proof texting. It is taking a text DEVOID of any authority and telling yourself that this is the only way to interpret it. This error has been condemned by the Church at Trent, and it is a similar method of exegesis that the Protestants use. Unfortunately most of the traditionalist Catholic world uses this, to downplay Vatican II and its teachings.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:58 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.