"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[mapleoak]

Yes, I know that Blood and Water are not “Sacraments”, which makes my point, not yours,

No it doesn’t make your point. You declared that the Council of Trent and Florence condemned the constant teaching of the Catholic Church which has always held that there indeed are such things as baptism of desire and baptism of blood. You have not shown where they have done so. You quoted the council of Trent to try and support your statement, however came up short. I indicated the reason as well. The Council specifically condemned the heresy that the sacrament of baptism is valid if water is not used. They were not speaking of Baptism of desire nor of blood, as these specifically are not even sacraments. I asked if you knew that. You replied yes. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense that you would you use the quote that you did from the Council of Trent. It does not apply.
I also asked if you knew that Baptism of desire and blood have the same efficacious nature in removing original sin as does the sacrament of baptism.

I gave you a Papal Citation. You admit he is condeming the heresy that water is Not necassary,

No, I pointed out to you that that is what Trent was condemning with the quote you used. They were by no means condemning the constant teaching of the Church that Baptism of Desire and of Blood. (The Church doesn’t condemn its own teachings by the way).

but then say, illogically, that therefore is not evidence and I came up short.

You did. Third time. Show where either Trent or Florence condemned baptism of desire or blood. I made it easier for you. You don’t have to support your assertion that both of these councils did so, since that is to hard it seems. You only have to support that even just ONE of these councils has done so.

Don’t fall for the lies of the sedevacantist church of the devil.

 

[mapleoak]

All of them since Pius XII (the last real Pope).

Say that enough times, it still will not come true. The last real pope is our current Pope Benedict XVI.

And again, for the 22nd time, the Church tells us this, again, Cum ExApostolatus Officio, Paul IV, Saint Robert Bellarmine on the nature of the Papacy, The Papal Coronation Oath (not taken by the Vatican II “popes”, Code of Canon Law, 1917, I think it was Canon 88.4, but in that numerical ballpark at any rate. I’m doing this extemporaneously realize.

I have no idea what you said here.

I think there have been exactly 43 acknowledged prior to Vaitcan II.

Acknowledged by whom?

During the Great Western Schism, there was at one time three “Popes” simultaneously.

No there wasn’t. There was only one Pope.

 

[mapleoak]

The Church does “not end” just because there is a usurper on the throne. All it takes is one real Catholic and one real Priest and there would be the Church.

Nonsense. Where did you hear this?

 

[NTOT]

To Mulligan,
recommended reading:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9507fea1.asp

Added link:
olfatima.com/sedevacantism_refuted.html

 

[mulligan59]

mapleoak:

No it doesn’t make your point. You declared that the Council of Trent and Florence condemned the constant teaching of the Catholic Church which has always held that there indeed are such things as baptism of desire and baptism of blood. You have not shown where they have done so. You quoted the council of Trent to try and support your statement, however came up short. I indicated the reason as well. The Council specifically condemned the heresy that the sacrament of baptism is valid if water is not used. They were not speaking of Baptism of desire nor of blood, as these specifically are not even sacraments. I asked if you knew that. You replied yes. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense that you would you use the quote that you did from the Council of Trent. It does not apply.

If water is necassary for Baptism, per the quote I gave, it seems obvious, that desire alone or blood alone are precluded. I don’t have time to find and cite everyone of the clear definitions against this. But here is another one. You might have to add two and two to get it.

Pope Paul III, Trent, Canons on the SACRAMENT of Baptism: “If any one says that Baptism is Optional, that is not necassary for salvation, let him be anathema”.

Now we earlier quoted that you can’t have Baptism sans water, now we see that the baptism that is required, is a Sacrament. But blood and desire are not sacraments. rather they are crations of mans will.

On the other hand, you will never find a similar pronouncement from any council or any Pope, that make a positive affirmation that someone can be saved without Baptism through some mysterious “desire” (pre Vatican II of course). Its not there, its not anywhere. Only in modern catechsims will you find it.

But since people believe this, and they also beleive that invincible ignorance works with in soem magical way to save everybody, we don;t even preach conversion anymore. It’s incredible. In fact the American Bishops have said that since Vatican II, it is illegal to convert the Jews. Now how is “desire working for them?”

Missonaries used to die at the hands of savages just to have the opportunity to baptize a few, so important they understood it to be. If Vatican II is true, they were fools. And the English Martyrs who resisted the Protestants were fools as well.

 

[mapleoak]

If water is necassary for Baptism, per the quote I gave, it seems obvious, that desire alone or blood alone are precluded.

And once again, I point out to you that water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism to be valid, as was indicated by the Council of Trent.

I don’t have time to find and cite everyone of the clear definitions against this.

Because there is none. The Church has never condemned, rather has always taught, that Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are as efficacious as the sacrament of Baptism in removing the stain of original sin and making eternal life possible. You are much confused in that it seems you believe that baptism of desire and of blood would then preclude the necessity of availing one the sacrament of baptism, and therefore they must be false. To assert such would be incorrect.

But here is another one. You might have to add two and two to get it.

Pope Paul III, Trent, Canons on the SACRAMENT of Baptism: “If any one says that Baptism is Optional, that is not necassary for salvation, let him be anathema”.

Yes baptism is necessary.

Now we earlier quoted that you can’t have Baptism sans water (no, the sacrament of baptism is not valid without water), now we see that the baptism that is required, is a Sacrament.

Interesting, but wrong conclusion. You are now claiming that since baptism without water is not a sacrament, therefore because baptism of desire does not involve water, the required baptism must be a sacrament. Strange indeed. Note that the Church has also always taught that if one is baptized through desire, it does not relinquish the necessity of availing oneself to sacramental baptism. It most certainly removes the stain of original sin and makes eternal life possible, just as does sacramental baptism.

btw, none of the above proves your silly notion that the Catholic Church has no Pope, though it may well prove that your personal Church has no pope.

But blood and desire are not sacraments. rather they are crations of mans will.

Did you know you can sin mortally while being deprived of the opportunity of committing the intended action? Such a sin would be the result of ones will. The fact that one desires baptism or is martyred yet is invincibly deprived of the opportunity does not invalidate the fact (as the Catholic Church has always taught) that baptism of desire or blood are efficacious in removing the stain of original sin.

On the other hand, you will never find a similar pronouncement from any council or any Pope, that make a positive affirmation that someone can be saved without Baptism through some mysterious “desire” (pre Vatican II of course). Its not there, its not anywhere. Only in modern catechsims will you find it.

There doesn’t need to be an official pronouncement in prior history by the Church. Once is enough. In the same way, the Church has only spoken ex-cathedra on the illegitimacy of womens’ ordination only once, yet that doesn’t make the Church wrong because it never spoke ex-cathedra on the matter in prior history. Note however, it certainly reaffirmed the “constant teaching of the Church”. So now you are just being silly.
The above also doesn’t prove that the Catholic Church has been abolished either and replaced with your secret society.

But since people believe this, and they also beleive that invincible ignorance works with in soem magical way to save everybody, we don;t even preach conversion anymore. It’s incredible. In fact the American Bishops have said that since Vatican II, it is illegal to convert the Jews. Now how is “desire working for them?”

Support for unfounded statement is required.

 

[NTOT]

The Church does “not end” just because there is a usurper on the throne. All it takes is one real Catholic and one real Priest and there would be the Church.

No, the Church does “not end” because it is guided by the Holy Spirit and an usurper on the throne is not possible.
Further if you deny the perpetual successorship of Peter and likewise when you assert the Holy Catholic Church misled itself by appointing the present pope or any pope, check out the strong words at the end of this pronouncement:

“If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right%between% that Blessed Peter%between% has perpetual successors%between% in his primacy%between% over the universal Church%between%, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor%between% of Blessed Peter in this same primacy%between%. – let him be anathema%between%” (Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 1823, 1825).

Ouch.

As to the silly notion of a Church with one person, that is only possible with protestant and individualist churches such as the one you belong to. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (four marks in the true Church) is a communal Church Militant.

 

[mulligan59]

And once again, I point out to you that water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism to be valid, as was indicated by the Council of Trent.

Because there is none. The Church has never condemned, rather has always taught, that Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are as efficacious as the sacrament of Baptism in removing the stain of original sin and making eternal life possible. You are much confused in that it seems you believe that baptism of desire and of blood would then preclude the necessity of availing one the sacrament of baptism, and therefore they must be false. To assert such would be incorrect.

Yes baptism is necessary.

Interesting, but wrong conclusion. You are now claiming that since baptism without water is not a sacrament, therefore because baptism of desire does not involve water, the required baptism must be a sacrament. Strange indeed. Note that the Church has also always taught that if one is baptized through desire, it does not relinquish the necessity of availing oneself to sacramental baptism. It most certainly removes the stain of original sin and makes eternal life possible, just as does sacramental baptism.

btw, none of the above proves your silly notion that the Catholic Church has no Pope, though it may well prove that your personal Church has no pope.

Did you know you can sin mortally while being deprived of the opportunity of committing the intended action?

 

[mulligan59]

No, the Church does “not end” because it is guided by the Holy Spirit and an usurper on the throne is not possible.

 

[Holly3278]

No sugar coating… What does it say of the morality of “Catholics” who believe more in the right to choose than in abstinence? Catholics who will stand up and walk out in the middle of a mass worshiping our God because they do not want to here a homily on the wrongs of abortion. After all, is that not what it comes down too? That it is today morally more acceptable to have an abortion than to have a child resulting from the failure to merely abstain?

Well, I as a liberal Episcopalian believe that sex before marriage is not sinful. I also believe that abortion is not sinful and neither is artificial birth control. I would like to see a reduction in the amount of abortions performed but I also believe that an increased awareness and usage of artificial birth control is one way to help get the numbers down.

 

[mulligan59]

Well, I as a liberal Episcopalian believe that sex before marriage is not sinful.

 

[Holly3278]

On what basis do you beleive that it is not sinful?

Read the following articles to understand my point of view better:

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Personhood.pdf

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Fetus.pdf

Basically, I do not believe the fetus to be a person until it is born and has breathed its first breath of air.

What does being an Episcopalian mean to you?

Being Episcopalian means a lot to me. And why this question is even being asked I don’t know. I am not going to answer this question in any more detail.

Why do you care what Catholics think?

Partly because Catholics have the potential to influence the laws of this nation and the laws of this nation influence how I live. If Catholics are able to get abortion banned in this nation, I will not be able to get an abortion should I choose to do so. Therefore, I care what Catholics think.

You’re fascinating, so many “whys” come to mind.

What?

Abortion is not murder?

That is correct.

If it is not sinful, then why would you like to see the numbers reduced?

Because some nations are facing falling populations due to abortions. I do not want to see that happen to the United States.

Who in this age of sexual license doesn’t know about birth control? It’s beyond ridiculous.

Quite a few teenagers know next to nothing about birth control now thanks to the ridiculous abstinence only “sex education” classes.

 

[Holly3278]

Read the following articles to understand my point of view better:

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Personhood.pdf

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Fetus.pdf

Basically, I do not believe the fetus to be a person until it is born and has breathed its first breath of air.

Being Episcopalian means a lot to me. And why this question is even being asked I don’t know. I am not going to answer this question in any more detail.

Partly because Catholics have the potential to influence the laws of this nation and the laws of this nation influence how I live. If Catholics are able to get abortion banned in this nation, I will not be able to get an abortion should I choose to do so. Therefore, I care what Catholics think.

What?

That is correct.

Because some nations are facing falling populations due to abortions. I do not want to see that happen to the United States.

Quite a few teenagers know next to nothing about birth control now thanks to the ridiculous abstinence only “sex education” classes.

I just wanted to apologize for posting this. I have repented of my sin of promoting abortion and have come back to the Catholic Church.

 

[mapleoak]

Yes. From the confetior, “thought word and deed”, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault (strike breast three times)

Then you would agree that you are mistaken when you claim that because acts of the will are a creation of man, baptism of desire is therefore invalid? Otherwise, your argument is pointless. Further what you have stated is not sufficient to prove that having the intention of getting baptized and being invincibly prevented from doing so, condemns one to hell, nor have you shown where the Church has ever taught this, contrary to itself.

This is actually the first real argument you have made in this entire ongoing discussion between us.

No it isn’t. It is the first one you recognized.

It is logical and I like the logic. But it doesn’t matter what I like. You have rejected my argument which was based on two Papal citations that establish three things: Baptism is necassary, it must be a Sacrament, and it requires water,

I attempted to correct your understanding of what the Council of Trent was saying and illustrated how you came to the wrong conclusion. I also pointed out that Trent never condemned the constant teaching of the Church on baptism of desire as well as pointed out that the Church doesn’t condemn its own teachings. But then you simply state the same thing again.

You reject it with a claim, that would be valid, were it true, that “desire” was the early teaching of the Church.

I also explained that baptism of desire while efficacious in removing original sin (that which excludes those tainted with it from eternal life) just as the sacrament of baptism does, it does not preclude the necessity of sacramental baptism. You could not find where Trent or Florence condemned the teaching of Baptism of desire or blood (which you asserted they did and I challenged you to show).

Well actually, that is too vague, but had you phrased it correctly as say “the unaimous teaching of the fathers and of recieved tradtion”, it would be a good argument were it true.
But you have given me nothing. Give me one reliable citation.

I gave you Saint Augustine, but you rejected it, therefore what use would it be to post more of the Church Fathers? They simply don’t agree with you, so why post more of them?

But there has to be that one. Where?

I gave you Saint Augustine, but you rejected it. Also Vatican II.

Find me one indicating that Desire suffices.

I gave you Saint Augustine, but you rejected it, saying something like he is not the magisterium. Then you ask for a Church Father who expressed a statement regarding baptism of desire.

Why do I have to do all of the work?

Actually, looks a lot like something that might come from the most holy family monastery or some such schismatic group. Be wary of those that attack the Church.

You still have not shown how this proves that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Catholic Church, let it fall into error, led the people astray by making the visible head of the Church invisible, and moving the Church to your secret society hidden from the universal church. You simply ignore it and continue to say nonsense regarding baptism. Possibly to divert attention from your attacks against the Holy Father, which in order to believe, one would have to acknowledge that Holy Spirit lied. Such is Blasphemy.

 

[mulligan59]

Read the following articles to understand my point of view better:

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Personhood.pdf

rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Fetus.pdf

Basically, I do not believe the fetus to be a person until it is born and has breathed its first breath of air.

 

[mapleoak]

A usurper to the throne is possible,

No it is not possible. There is an unbroken line in the Chair of Peter up till the present time.

it has happened (I mean I gave you or some one the anti-popes earlier)

You also said there was a time when there was three popes. There was never a time when there was three popes. Also the Catholic Church doesn’t have anti-popes. I explained this earlier as well. Maybe if you wait long enough and say again the Church had anti-popes, it will come true. Otherwise don’t ignore it, but support your statement. Now if the Church has discovered that it had canonically elected popes who were anti-popes, illustrate where it acknowledged this. You make the claim, so support it. If you can’t support it, don’t make the claim. Don’t ignore it either and state later on “the Church had anti-popes”.

I’m actually the one defending the Papacy, from Peter to Pius XIIth.

Nope, you are defending your secret society. The one with the invisible head. The The Catholic Church post Vatican II has condemned your beliefs.

This new church isn’t Catholic.

Correct, your new church is schismatic and condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[mulligan59]

You still have not shown how this proves that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Catholic Church, let it fall into error, led the people astray by making the visible head of the Church invisible, and moving the Church to your secret society hidden from the universal church. You simply ignore it and continue to say nonsense regarding baptism. Possibly to divert attention from your attacks against the Holy Father, which in order to believe, one would have to acknowledge that Holy Spirit lied. Such is Blasphemy.

It is not my intention to prove that the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Church because I don’t believe it to be true. I believe that the Devil is being allowed to test Catholics, like God let him test Job. Consider from where Michael recieved authority to counter Satan, his lawful superior?

You don;t understand what the Papacy is and isn’t and what the promise of Christ means.

I gave you at least (4) early fathers, to yours. You still avoid the issue of whether or not you even believe Baptism of Desire is necassary, as your New Church essentially says all can be saved in in false religions.

You mentioned the MHFM and I refer you to them. They do this full time, but I have to make a living in the real world. If you think they are wrong, debate them. You will be smoked as they say in racing. I’m off to China and really have to leave as promised. But someone should take up the case of Holly the proabortion prot. I fired a salvo but cannot continue.

 

[mapleoak]

It is not my intention to prove that the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Church because I don’t believe it to be true. I believe that the Devil is being allowed to test Catholics, like God let him test Job. Consider from where Michael recieved authority to counter Satan, his lawful superior?

So you believe the the Holy Ghost abandoned the the Church allowing the Church to lead the faithful astray even Herself being decieved save for your secret society with an invisible head for its church? Christ assured us He would be with His Church till the end of time.

You don;t understand what the Papacy is and isn’t and what the promise of Christ means.

The Papacy consist of the Chair of Peter and the magisterium of the Church. For you to claim that there is no pope means the magisterium of the Church is in error, and therefore the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church and the faithful have been mislead. Blasphemy.

I gave you at least (4) early fathers, to yours.

You wouldn’t even acknowledge my one. Yours were out of context.

You still avoid the issue of whether or not you even believe Baptism of Desire is necassary,

Baptism of desire suffices as remission of original sin and makes eternal life possible. It does not preclude necessity of sacramental baptism as indicated by the Council of Trent. Desire is just that, intention and willful purpose. You agreed that desire is enough to satisfy the condition for a sin to be mortal, even in the absence of desired action. That fact that one is invincibly prevented from commiting the mortal intended act, does not eliminate the fact that sin is committed. Likewise being invincibly prevented from sacramental baptism does not negate the remission of original sin.

as your New Church essentially says all can be saved in in false religions.

Except that my Church is the Catholic Church founded by Christ with Benedict XVI as its visible head. The Catholic Church has said no such thing.

You mentioned the MHFM and I refer you to them.

It didn’t take much to determine that you follow their schismatic teachings. Notice how sedavacantist movements are divided not only against the Church, but against each other. Your group for example is at odds with SSPX. As for me, I follow the teachings of the Church with the four marks, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Holy Ghost doesn’t divide, man does when cooperating with the devil.

They do this full time, but I have to make a living in the real world. If you think they are wrong, debate them. You will be smoked as they say in racing.

I don’t have to, their teachings have been condemned by the Church.

 

[elts1956]

Well, I as a liberal Episcopalian believe that sex before marriage is not sinful. I also believe that abortion is not sinful and neither is artificial birth control. I would like to see a reduction in the amount of abortions performed but I also believe that an increased awareness and usage of artificial birth control is one way to help get the numbers down.

What laws of faith do you follow then? Can you support your beliefs through the words of Christ?

 

[elts1956]

Well, I as a liberal Episcopalian believe that sex before marriage is not sinful. I also believe that abortion is not sinful and neither is artificial birth control. I would like to see a reduction in the amount of abortions performed but I also believe that an increased awareness and usage of artificial birth control is one way to help get the numbers down.

It is not my intention to prove that the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Church because I don’t believe it to be true. I believe that the Devil is being allowed to test Catholics, like God let him test Job. Consider from where Michael recieved authority to counter Satan, his lawful superior?

You don;t understand what the Papacy is and isn’t and what the promise of Christ means.

I gave you at least (4) early fathers, to yours. You still avoid the issue of whether or not you even believe Baptism of Desire is necassary, as your New Church essentially says all can be saved in in false religions. Baptism of Desire is the Desire to know Christ. Have you ever said the Chaplet of Divine Mercy? God is all just, but He is also all merciful.

You mentioned the MHFM and I refer you to them. They do this full time, but I have to make a living in the real world. If you think they are wrong, debate them. You will be smoked as they say in racing. I’m off to China and really have to leave as promised. But someone should take up the case of Holly the proabortion prot. I fired a salvo but cannot continue.

If you are talking about our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (as I believe Mapleoak stated) being new, it is not, nor does she state as dogma that all can be saved in false religions. If you had read what the Popes have stated since Vatican II, you would understand this. Instead you mock the Holy Spirit in that you do not believe Christ sent the Paraclete to protect His Church in teaching doctrine and dogma through all time.

I have read some of the websites which purport the same slanders as you. I found them vicious, untruthful and full of lies.