One note of errata: You misspoke about the Dimonds teachings, when you stated that they fall into the trap of conflating the teachings of Saints, Doctors, and Theologians with that of Tradition and Magisterium. They actually teach the exact opposite. Google their article on Geocentrism, Bellarmine, and BOD. Granted, it can sometimes appear that they do; but once you dive deep on their work, the careful distinction is frequently made. As an aside, for the record, this is in no way an indication that I am disciples of theirs. While I do believe that they are brilliant luminaries and brave defenders of the Truth; and have yet to find a single error in anything they have published which pertains to Faith and Morals; they do show a poignant lack of Wisdom and Prudence in other matters. For one, they censor their KZbin comments section by only permitting gushing rubber-stamping, and systematically deleting and "shadow" blocking any constructive criticism. I discovered this when I dared to challenge their advocacy for the reptilian demon who goes by the name of "Trump" in popular media. Not only did they delete my comments, and shadow block me from posting further comments (something which I needed to open an "incognito" window in my browser in order to realize), they also denied having done so when confronted. I could be wrong, of course; but all I know is my comments never saw the light of day. Other than that, their work has strengthened my Faith more in 2 years than a lifetime of "traditional catholic" poison. Lastly (because both words have been co-opted by the enemy), I tell people: I'm not "traditionalist", nor a "sedevacantist"; I'm an actual Catholic. Keep the Faith. James. ☧
@LivingEchoes189010 күн бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting. With MHFM, what they say is sometimes at odds with how they behave. Some things are technically stated by them, but in practice, they do not act consistent with it. I would challenge you to really examine their positions on faith and morals however, because they do in fact have errors - if not in what they say, in how they behave and practice their faith. I was appalled at their gushing over Trump as well; it is another indication their ends times predictions are full of errors; which they attempt to hide from people. Living Echoes is a Catholic publication and podcast, "sedevacantism" is not an identity, it is merely a description of the current state the Church finds herself in. Thank you again James for watching the content on Living Echoes.
@JamesJosephFinn9 күн бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 And thank you for politely engaging with your subscribers! MHFM, to me, was a lone wolf crying in the wilderness, until I was joyed to discover your work. You're evidently articulate, well studied; and, unlike MHFM, you radiate a joyful, peaceful charism. I very much look forward to following your work. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. Pax. James. ☧
@JamesJosephFinn12 күн бұрын
Thanks again for your backup on that facebook volley with those heretics. Landed here from there. Pax.
@LivingEchoes189011 күн бұрын
Thank you for watching James.
@JMN4020 күн бұрын
Does Luke have a channel?? He mentioned a debate w Nick Santosusso? Would be interesting to see.
@LivingEchoes189011 күн бұрын
Here is the first of 2 debates with Nick Santosusso: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoWZlH59nJ1mhqs
@JMN4011 күн бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Thank you!!!
@LivingEchoes189010 күн бұрын
@@JMN40 You are welcome
@stjohnstorm21 күн бұрын
For three hours, while Ian was on the screen, I waited to hear the famous quote from Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and EVEN IF HE HAS SHED BLOOD in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Maybe someone should tell Ian that shedding blood gets you NOWHERE, if you are NOT a baptized member of The Church.
@Rosaryofroses21 күн бұрын
Although that is a good quote, many in error are under the impression that the very act of shedding one's blood for Christ places them in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. It seems they believe once a person has decided to die for Christ (even before the act of martyrdom), they are placed into a state of grace. Refuting baptism of desire seems to be necessary for people to understand that neither that nor baptism of blood can justify.
@restoringcatholicculture776822 күн бұрын
The visiting Angel at a persons impending death comes from the heretical Luisa Piccaretta
@LivingEchoes189011 күн бұрын
Thank you Sister
@EarlyChristianBeliefs25 күн бұрын
So as for the listener Question why cannot one be saved only with the water but no intention to be baptized. My answer I am not aware of any Catholic ever who tought that.
@LivingEchoes189025 күн бұрын
Correct. But if your understanding of Trent Session 6 Chapter 4 is correct, and the statement means you can be saved either by the laver of rebirth or by the desire for it, then wouldn't that necessarily mean you can be saved by either water baptism alone or by the desire for it alone? Wouldn't that sword cut both ways?
@Rosaryofroses26 күн бұрын
Here is something worth considering (it is not a personal attack on anyone): St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 15, Article 1, Reply to Objection 3: To understand the truth is, in itself, beloved by all; and yet, accidentally it may be hateful to someone, in so far as a man is hindered thereby from having what he loves yet more. Article 3 of the same section: Wherefore lust gives rise to blindness of mind, which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual things, while dulness of sense arises from gluttony, which makes a man weak in regard to the same intelligible things. On the other hand, the contrary virtues, viz. abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation. Hence it is written (Daniel 1:17) that "to these children" on account of their abstinence and continency, "God gave knowledge and understanding in every book, and wisdom."
@TheNarrowGate10124 күн бұрын
👍👍👍
@brucedavenport701626 күн бұрын
Even the thumbnail is false doctrine! Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Matthew 3:13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
@LivingEchoes189026 күн бұрын
Hello Bruce, thank you for watching. What about the thumbnail is false? Are you a Catholic?
@brucedavenport701626 күн бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 The thumbnail depicts someone being sprinkled with water. That activity doesn't align with scripture. I'm a Christian.
@LivingEchoes189026 күн бұрын
@@brucedavenport7016 The thumbnail shows St. Ambrose baptizing St. Augustine. Is it your belief that St. Augustine was not a Christian?
@brucedavenport701626 күн бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 The Greek defines baptized as "fully wet" or whelmed. Just as Jesus required the Jordan River to be "fully wet" and John required "much water" in order to baptise. Sprinkling a little water on someones head has no scriptural support as baptism. So, based on scripture, "St Augustine" was not saved, therefore not a Christian. Unless of course, you can show me scripturally where sprinkling replaced the need to be fully wet.
@Rosaryofroses26 күн бұрын
@@brucedavenport7016 I believe you would first need to establish the necessity of proving it from Sacred Scripture.
@EarlyChristianBeliefs27 күн бұрын
Clarification: I did not intend to deny that BoB or BoD was Ordinary Magisterium. I was just trying to avoid discussing weather or not it was Magisterium. I did affirm that I believe the Council of Teaches BoD.
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
Thank you for clarifying Ian. Early in the video you did seem to say you aren't sure if BOD was true or part of the deposit of faith. Is it your claim that the ordinary magisterium teaches that a catechumen's desire for baptism can give him sanctifying grace and thus open the way of heaven to him without him ever actually receiving the sacrament itself before his death?
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
St. Augustine On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens Paragraph #16 Source: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers by Philip Schaff, D.D, L.L.D, Volume III, 1887, p. 375 “In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God doth not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? when they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remitteth. For how can they say, "Our Father," who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins.” What do you think of this statement by St. Augustine?
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
@@Rosaryofroses That is a powerful testimony from St. Augustine. If we reflect too on what it means to be "born again" this will make even more sense. For when a man is born of the flesh, he is so by no choice or will on his part. God gave him life in the womb of his mother quite without his permission and then he is born with no decision on his part. Likewise, to be "born again" is not something a man can do of his own accord. We must be chosen by God for this new birth and then it must be given to us in baptism. No matter how much we desire to be born again, we are not so until it actually happens. Just the same as an infant baby is not born, no matter how much anyone desires it, until it is actually born. Also Ian, you mentioned you would need to see baptism of desire specifically rejected by the Fathers, well, St. Gregory Nazianzen specifically dealt with the very concept of desire taking the place of baptism and he explicitly rejected it: St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, January 6, 381: “22. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the Kingdom of Heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom." "If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:- If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?"
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
@@Rosaryofroses St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book 5, Chap. 4: “Of the number of the elect and predestined, even those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the goodness of God… Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator [Baptism]. Because of these men, our Lord says: ‘This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’”
@EarlyChristianBeliefs26 күн бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 I believe that the Church does teach that a Catechumen can, in some way I do not understand, be saved by Baptism of Desire.
@no_ads339427 күн бұрын
You mentioned the "age of reason" during this video, but I've noticed that this qualification is not given by the Church in many of her dogmatic statements. For example, Mystici Corporis Christi doesn't say "actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith [if above the age of reason]". Similarly, Unam Sanctam doesn't say "furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature [above the age of reason] be subject to the Roman Pontiff." What is your basis for assuming that this qualification applies in all cases when the Church only specifies "age of reason" in particular cases?
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
In Quam Singulari, Pope Pius X speaks of the age of reason in relation to children receiving the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, and so gives a definition of it: “Therefore, the age of discretion for Confession is the time when one can distinguish between right and wrong, that is, when one arrives at a certain use of reason, and so similarly, for Holy Communion is required the age when one can distinguish between the Bread of the Holy Eucharist and ordinary bread-again the age at which a child attains the use of reason.”
@no_ads339427 күн бұрын
@@Rosaryofroses Right, so a more faithful and strict reading of those dogmas would be that babies cannot be saved until they reach the age of reason. Like I said, age of reason is used when referring things such as reception of the Eucharist like you mentioned. But the Church has made no such qualification regarding submission to the Roman Pontiff or professing the true faith.
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
@@no_ads3394 Good question. The Sacrament of Baptism makes an infant subject to the Roman Pontiff. It's de fide that once one is baptized, they are subject to the Church (Council of Trent) and the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Church. Also, even if you were correct in how you are reading Mystici Corporis, it would still prove that all who supposedly receive BOD and BOB are not members of the Church, because they have not received the laver of regeneration. Ian was unable to show how these people become members and how such a belief is compatible with his beliefs on this issue. Unam Sanctam actually proves my assertion as well when we consider the following question: Are unbaptized catechumens subject to the Roman Pontiff?
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
@@no_ads3394 In addition, infants do profess the faith once baptized because the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused by the sacrament. Your question highlights a key problem with this issue that is often overlooked - no one can have the Catholic faith before sacramental baptism. Man can only have a natural faith before he is baptized in water, and in his baptism, he is given the Supernatural gifts of the theological virtues, faith, hope and charity. This is why during the baptismal ritual the catechumen is asked, "What do you desire?" and he answers, "faith." If he already had the faith, why is the Church making him ask for a faith he already has? It's because he in fact does not have faith. Only the baptized are "the faithful" which is also why the Mass was divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. The Catechumens were not permitted at the Mass of the faithful because they are not part of the faithful - they do not have the faith and have not been initiated into the Catholic religion. Tradition and history all prove that Jesus Christ made no exceptions for being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Thank you for watching the video.
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Indeed, it ultimately outlines the principle Our Lord gives in John 15:5 -- "I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing."
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
Pope St. Leo the Great Letter #16: To the Bishops of Sicily, Chapter 6: In cases of urgency other times are allowable for baptism Source: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D, and Henry Wace, D. D., Second Series, Volume 12, 1895, p. 29 “Wherefore, as it is quite clear that these two seasons of which we have been speaking are the rightful ones for baptizing the chosen in Church, we admonish you, beloved, not to add other days to this observance. Because, although there are other festivals also to which much reverence is due in God's honour, yet we must rationally guard this principal and greatest sacrament as a deep mystery and not part of the ordinary routine: not, however, prohibiting the licence to succour those who are in danger by administering baptism to them at any time. For whilst we put off the vows of those who are not pressed by ill health and live in peaceful security to those two closely connected and cognate festivals, we do not at any time refuse this which is the only safeguard of true salvation to any one in peril of death, in the crisis of a siege, in the distress of persecution, in the terror of shipwreck.”
@drwalmgc27 күн бұрын
Absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism taught by the Church does exclude salvation without Baptism, celebrated in water. Disagreements about BOD, or BOB of the theologians, lack of clear Papal statement about it points to no universal consent, and lack of Universal Ordinary Magisterium on the matter point to the fact that it's not Church teaching. I believe there is a misunderstanding regarding nature of the Christian martyrdom, and that those who shed a blood for the Christ are automatically incorporated into Mystical Body of Christ without water baptism, instead of them receiving crown of martyrdom in addition to robes of theirs already washed, and whitened in the Lamb's blood in prior sacrament of Baptism, in which supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity is infused into a person and allows him to go to a martyrdom: Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra: “Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man… Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity.” It's useful then to look for the Biblical parallels... look are house of bondage / sin: Egypt. Those who listened to Moses killed a lamb, and stained door frame with blood of that lamb, so the angel of death wouldn't enter and kill all the firstborn males in that house. Those who didn't listen to Moses: Had their family loosing their first born males. It wasn't sufficient to call yourself a Jew, and believe in God. Those firstborn males would die yet in house of bondage, they couldn't cross the red sea (parallel of the water baptism) and begin their pilgrimage to the promised land (that parallels New Jerusalem). I want to reiterate... those who were afraid, and stayed in Egypt, or just didn't follow Moses out of Egypt, and through the Red Sea -> They died in house of bondage. To even begin to walk towards the New Jerusalem - you need to cross waters, you need to wash your robes in Lamb's blood... and continue in bosom and unity of the Catholic Church just like those who followed Moses, and Joshua to Jerusalem. After Cantate Domino: " and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church". I would weight in on "more glorious", or "less glorious"... this is beyond the point just to be honest. One that believes in Christ should look beyond that. It's surely very glorious to conquer Jerusalem from Saracens done by nobles, knights, and crusaders, for the Church - in human eyes... for many even much more glorious than to be martyred. How much more glorious is when Christ's merit is applied via Sacrament of Baptism to rescue a person from the darkness of sin... King of King's Himself breaking peoples chains of bondage, infusing them with Faith, Hope, Charity, cleaning them from all filth, and adopting them to his own family. Isn't that something most glorious, it's earth shattering? This is how glorious God is, and how generous for those who listen His words, and act it out. John 3:5.
@CatholicHusband27 күн бұрын
Excellent comments. The OT examples are very clear. All who did not physically enter Noah's Ark were lost.
@drwalmgc26 күн бұрын
Exactly. It's fascinating that in all instances before Christ's merit was applied to the water, via power of his name: The Father, and the Son, and a Holy Ghost: they do not touch waters, they walk of the dry land, or are separated from these waters. The same Old Testament just Jews were separated from the wicked and their torment, and awaiting Christ's descension, awaiting Living Water that does not kill but brings Life Everlasting. I think a key to understand how important Baptism is should be realization that Circumcision is presented as the Old Testament figure of the Holy Baptism. Moses was nearly removed from land of living because he refused to circumcised his son, breaking the covenant. I know one "catechumen" that is sincerely convinced of the BOD position, and he doesn't seek an opportunity to get baptized, he pushed it forward in time, delayed it, delayed his actions to speed it up, seek rather financial stability first, possibility to move out of the troubled area. It's an inversion of a parables of the Pearl of great price, or the Hidden Treasure, and in my honest opinion it's a travesty. The same guy considers himself a part of the God's Kingdom, part of the Church via his desire, but no action that could be compared to the one who sold everything he has to own the treasure, to own the pearl. Building on desire is like building on sand. "And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. " God help the scandalized ones.
@LivingEchoes189026 күн бұрын
@@drwalmgc Excellent comments sir. You sound like a good fellow who has a solid grasp on these issues. Can you email me at LivingEchoes1890@gmail. com so we can discuss further?
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
@EarlyChristianBeliefs27 күн бұрын
Thank you again Alex for having me on to talk with you! Sorry I had to skip out early!
@LivingEchoes189027 күн бұрын
We had already spoken for several hours, you didn't leave early. Thank you for coming on.
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
Hello Ian, thank you for your civility and honesty in this discussion. I wanted to ask you: in Session 6, Ch. 4 of the Council of Trent, according to you it could be an either or, meaning that one can be justified without the sacrament but with the desire. If it was truly an either or, would it not follow that one can be saved with the sacrament only and not the desire for it? Why or why not, and is this logically and theologically consistent?
@philintrate4378Ай бұрын
The Catechism of Council of Trent is actually quite clear on this: *Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed* The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since *infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism*, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death. *Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once* On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; *should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness*. The Catechism is clearly contrasting adults with infants. Infants cannot be saved by desire since they are incapable of having that, but adults can. The second paragraph is therefore contrasting adults with infants who have no other means, which implies that the adults do have some other means (and it states what that looks like).
@CatholicHusband28 күн бұрын
Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God - John 3:5. Is that true or false?
@philintrate437827 күн бұрын
@@CatholicHusband Nice dodge, but I'll play along. Yes, it is true, and it in no way contradicts Baptism of Desire. Just in the same way that when Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Confession in John 20 and specifically gave that power to the ministerial priesthood, this in no way contradicts the fact that sins can be forgiven in other ways outside of the Sacrament.
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
@@philintrate4378 Sins are not forgiven outside of the Sacrament, because along with perfect contrition, one must intend to receive the sacrament of penance in order to be forgiven. This privilege is only given to the baptized as the Council of Trent teaches. Further, the Catechism of Trent is at best ambiguous regarding baptism of desire. Firstly, the term is not explicitly used. Secondly, a possible meaning to the passage you reference on this is that if an adult is prevented from receiving it, God will reward their good disposition by eventually granting them to be baptized by water.
@philintrate437827 күн бұрын
@@Rosaryofroses If the person in that scenario dies before making it to confession, are his sins forgiven? If so, then that is a clear example of sins being forgiven outside of the Sacrament.
@Rosaryofroses27 күн бұрын
@@philintrate4378 Such a person would be forgiven. However, the Church does not teach the same regarding the sacrament of baptism. No one is denying that God possesses the power to justify outside of the sacrament of baptism. We are showing that God has ORDAINED that no one after the promulgation of the Gospel is justified without the sacrament of baptism.
@drwalmgcАй бұрын
It's phenomenal, I think I need to listen to it more than once. This gives me a lot of clarity to what should I do in practical way. Also, to not be internally torn apart, but integral faith, and family man. I cannot blame my wife for everything... and seeing it from the fall perspective: I don't want to be like Adam, we should be so over it already with all the graces. Something I've experienced recently: It's vital that you actively look for your wife virtues, or even anything naturally good starting with her beauty, and compliment her... a lot. I cannot stress it enough, it makes all the difference. Don't become bitter in your marriage conflicts, do you hate yourself, love your wife. Please don't stop, and may God bless you.
@LivingEchoes1890Ай бұрын
@@drwalmgc We are very glad you found this helpful, May God bless you.
@drwalmgcАй бұрын
Is the 1917 Code of Canon Law directed entirely to the whole Church in its entirety? No. Then it doesn't fulfil conditions for infallibility. Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.” Just by the very fact that not everything is binding all the Church: It cannot be infallible. It doesn't matter which parts. We can see clear errors going against the Infallible positions of Session 6 CH.4 of Council of Trent showing that John 3: 5 should be understood as it is written, and Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, so the Canon 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law providentially points to lack of universality in binding of the Code of Canon Law, so also cannot override the Universal and Extraordinary Magisterium, that should be considered as first before anything of lesser weight. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws IMPOSED UPON ALL; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.” Baptized, and unbelievers are lost, the same baptized, and in mortal, unremitted sin. Outside of the Church body there is no salvation, nor remission of sins - It's dogma. How to enter the Church, but by narrow gate? Necessity of baptism is very narrow gate, but it's even narrower when you encounter for maintaining true faith, and maintaining your baptismal robes clean. Rest is just an attempt to appear more palatable to unbelievers, and it's mark of unbelief in divine providence towards those people of good faith. Baptism of desire is a specific flavor of a justification by faith alone.
@LivingEchoes1890Ай бұрын
"And now, finally, We have checked in every part, approved and ratified the new Code of all Canon Law, which had already been invoked by many Bishops during the Vatican Council and whose drafting lasted twelve whole years. Therefore, having invoked the help of divine grace, strengthened by the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, with our own motion, with certain knowledge and in the fullness of the Apostolic power with which we are invested, with this Constitution of ours, to which we intend to attribute perpetual validity, we promulgate the present Code, as it has been drawn up, and we decree and command that it shall henceforth have the force of law for the whole Church, and we entrust it to your safeguard and vigilance." - Pope Benedict XV, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, 1917, Feast of Pentecost.
@drwalmgcАй бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 We don't disagree in some points, correct me if I am wrong: 1. 1917 Code of Canon Law contains error, contradict tradition regarding ecclesiastical burial of the catechumens who died without baptism, speaks about delayed ensoulment, mentions BOD which goes against divine revelation. 2. If it contains errors - it is provably not infallible. 3. It is not wholly binding the whole Church, as per Canon 1. 4. It cannot wholly bind the whole Church, because it contains errors, at least in parts that errors are found. Now, I know what Providentissima Mater Ecclesia said, and I do not take it lightly... but clearly there is a reason why infallibility didn't work. Maybe it has something to do with a fact that the document was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Maybe it suffice to point to Canon 1 of the Code. If it doesn't apply to the whole Church always: It doesn't retain condition for infallibility, and it provably isn't spotless. I don't believe that Benedict XV was an antipope, there are other good reasons why it was not perfect.
@LivingEchoes1890Ай бұрын
@@drwalmgc What specific error does the 1917 CIC contain and where precisely is the alleged error? Canon 1 says anything which of its nature binds the Church binds the Church. So even though most of the disciplines only apply to the Latin Church, that does not mean other things in the Code do not bind everyone. Also, whether the Code binds the whole Church or not is not relevant to the argument Luke and I put forth. Viz. that if one wants to claim the code taught heresy or error on faith and morals, then this came from Pope Benedict XV while he attempted to use his Apostolic Authority to promulgate the Code. So if you believe Canon 737 for example actually teaches salvation without baptism, then this heresy was given to us under the authority of a true Pope. There are only 2 ways to avoid this: 1) My position, viz. that Canon 737 actually teaches the truth that salvation is only for the baptized, and to say that those who accuse it of teaching against water baptism have misinterpreted the Canon 2) Declare Pope Benedict XV an antipope, and thus the Code was not an act of Papal authority, but of an antipope. But it does not seem like you or MHFM or any of their other followers are willing to do this. You must take either of these 2 positions to save the Church from defection. Because if you choose the untenable option of MHFM, viz. that a true Pope invoked his full Apostolic Authority to teach error and heresy against Trent and John 3:5, then you are a Lefebvrist who picks and chooses what he submits to from true Popes, just like the Novus Ordo, and SSPX. It wouldn't matter whether Pope Benedict XV taught this with malice or simply "erred in good faith", the end result would still be that a true Pope led the Church into heresy and error while invoking his "full Apostolic power". If you continue to claim he is Pope, you dissent from his official acts of authority, which would make you a schismatic, similar to how the SSPX is schismatic against their stated authority. Do you see the problem? MHFM isn't infallible. In fact, they are well documented to have made many errors. Don't throw out the CIC to protect MHFM if that is what you are doing. Defend the Pope and the Magisterium first.
@drwalmgcАй бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 I believe that you are coping hard only because you assume that 1917 CoCL cannot contain error while promulgated in such way as it was. I disagree. Fact of the matter is that IT IS NOT IMPOSED UPON ALL, so freedom from error is not guaranteed, it doesn't fulfil all the contitions for infaliability. I am stunned that you read the same text of Canon 1, and you derrive completelly different conclusion. You do allege errors, but you throw baby with a bathwater, you accuse your Pontiff - Benedict XV - to be an antipope. I believe that you are wrong, but I don't know if you considered all implications of that error. Ecclesiastical burrial of unbaptised catechumens, baptism "at least in desire" for salvation, and allegation that heretics may be in good faith, are the main errors. Passive attendance on Protestant, Orthodox liturgy in my opinion may be a source of a scandal, and puts family / friends above God, and who does it: is not worth Him. I never, ever, anywhere claimed that MHFM is infaliable, but you know, the same framework of understanding applies to you, and other experts in the matter. CMRI may point to you in the same manner on BOD question, and you use Divine Revelation of the Scripture + Infaliable Magisterium, while they use fallible cope... and text that you need to mistranslate, and interpret into it hard to have the desired result. In fact: I rather go with my understanding of the Infaliability, its conditions, and mine (which may be wrong, but in a good faith) opinion on how it does apply to the 1917 CoCL while reading that it doesn't entirely apply to ALL, which makes it not entirely infaliable. You, or me may be wrong in good faith about the matter, which also applies to MHFM. Herd scatters when shepherd is striken. That matter would be solved by the Pontiff, but we don't have one, and we agree on that. To begin to consider your position to be true: I would like to understand all around implications of the position, what does it mean... where was the remnant of the faithful during the time after 1917. Is it just scatered minority of people believing in Church Dogmas first, and explaining the faith through those lenses? Do you have a video, or an article about that subject?
@drwalmgcАй бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Btw. I like you personally, I love Church Dogmas, and all those who are trying to uphold them. I understand the sentiment. I think that your speculation on the matter are valuable, is case of the 1917 code the only one that brings you in doubt of Benedict XV validity as a Pontiff, and had he lost his office on1917, or is his whole Pontificate invalid. Is it a matter of 8, or 5 years of invalidity of thatever he did? Discussion is neede, and if fruitful it will bring many more people to accept the Magisterium, and reject anti-magisterium. I frankly do not understand all of the implications of your position... and I was deceived in the past by Novus Ordo. If it wouldn't be for inconsistencies from Divine Revelation: I would be in Vatican 2 still. I really like your aproach.
@eagle44442Ай бұрын
Since you believe that Mary is 'Co-Redemptrix', does that mean that you believe she is a redeemer along with Jesus?
@LivingEchoes1890Ай бұрын
I believe that the way the Popes and saints used the title, or taught something of the same substance, is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. Do you reject those Popes and saints as heretical?
@eagle44442Ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 I think they were not heretics, but I think it is heretical if obstinately held. But I’m trying to get your belief on it. I asked a specific question on the matter: does that mean that you believe she is a redeemer along with Jesus?
@eagle44442Ай бұрын
Also which saints do you think taught it?
@eagle44442Ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 are you there?
@eagle44442Ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Hey, are you going to respond?
@JMN40Ай бұрын
MHFM has an excellent video covering this issue, the ‘17 code/bod.
@EarlyChristianBeliefsАй бұрын
Could you please post a link to the Justification Debate?
@LivingEchoes1890Ай бұрын
I added it to the description on this video. Thank you for watching.
@EarlyChristianBeliefsАй бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 my pleasure 🙏
@JMN40Ай бұрын
QUESTION: where do you go to receive Sacraments?? Are you a fan of the Dimond bros/MHFM???
Thank you for pointing that out. I am animated when I speak, and move my hands a lot; if my actions scandalized you, I will take care to be more cognizant of what I am doing in future videos. May God bless you.
@soupoftheweek24022 ай бұрын
At 1:46:42 the speaker claims that in the encyclical Orientalis Omenes Ecclesias Pius XII refers to Eastern schismatics as "Christians". This is false. The encyclical refers solely to the faithful of the Ruthenian Church, which was obviously in union with the Papacy . The encyclical is available to read online.
@CatholicHusband2 ай бұрын
Thank you for pointing that out. I will double check that. However, the overall point stands - Pope Pius XI called for the "union of Christians" in Mortalium Animos. According to the logic espoused by Bro. Michael in "Vatican II, Council of Apostasy", that would be heresy. What say you to that?
@LivingEchoes18902 ай бұрын
I am going to double check on your claim about Omenes Ecclesias from Pius XII. However, the overall point made still stands because Pope Pius XI said this in Mortalium Animos: Pope Pius XI: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ…” (Mortalium Animos # 10, Jan. 6, 1928) I pulled this citation right off of MHFM's website. He clearly calls non-catholics "Christians" and yet, he is not condemned for heresy by MHFM. Do you believe Pope Pius XI was in heresy for this teaching in Mortalium Animos?
@soupoftheweek24022 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Your argument is absurd. Stop misrepresenting Pius XI and stop attacking Most Holy Family Monastery.
@CatholicHusband2 ай бұрын
@@soupoftheweek2402Is the Pius XI quote heresy?
@soupoftheweek24022 ай бұрын
@@CatholicHusband No.
@Rosaryofroses2 ай бұрын
I recently found some interesting proof from the Holy Council of Trent which expresses that only those who have received the sacrament of baptism, belong to the household of the Faith. SESSION 14 CHAPTER 2 On the difference between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism "For the rest, this sacrament is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects: for besides that it is very widely different indeed in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it is beyond doubt certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them that are without? It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body..."
@no_ads33943 ай бұрын
The idea that God could resurrect people to Baptize them kind of makes this whole debate moot, because the BOD advocates can just say "well then everyone who desires Baptism will be resurrected and Baptized by God, or perhaps an Angel will come and Baptize them on their deathbed". Actually, this could be a great solution that both sides could agree to.
@markmead67422 ай бұрын
Ridiculous, contrary to The Very Words of Jesus Christ our God in more than one Bible verse, and dozens of scripture examples, and several Dogmatic Decrees. Know that to think and say such as you are will cost you your soul, as a heretic, that such heresy has been Declared "the gates of hell". I suggest you pray, and study a lot, do you will have the base wherewithal to repent Abjure confess receive Absolution and do Penance ASAP. Kyrie Eleison 😔
@no_ads33942 ай бұрын
@@markmead6742 I'm confused, what did I say that was "ridiculous" or contrary to the truth, or heretical? I feel perhaps you didn't read my comment slowly enough.
@LivingEchoes18902 ай бұрын
Hello, thank you for watching the debate. There is no reason for anyone to obstinately insist that God saves people without water, because angels can transport men to a dying person to baptize them, just as was done in Scripture in the book of Acts with Philip and the Eunuch, or in the Old Testament with Habakkuk and Daniel (so Daniel could eat). God's providence can get water to anyone, anywhere, at any time.
@no_ads33942 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 So then it could be true that unbaptized Catechumens and Martyrs are baptized by Angels?
@CatholicHusband2 ай бұрын
@@no_ads3394They would not be unbaptized then, and we know from Trent, Canon 2 on baptism, that they would need real and natural water for the baptism. So the person would be truly, sacramentally baptized. I am not aware of any teaching which precludes am angel from administering baptism, and if they cannot for some reason, they can transport a man to another man in order to perform a baptism, just as was done with Philip and the Eunuch.
@philintrate43783 ай бұрын
I'm a bit confused on the timeline that Living Echos presented. If the New Covenant and the requirement to be Baptized began at the Great Commission, then what does that mean for the Apostles? They were made priests of the New Covenant at the Last Supper, so it would seem that they must have been Baptized prior to that. But if the Old Covenant was still in effect, that would mean their Baptism didn't actually justify them, right? Did the effects of their Baptism get delayed until the Great Commission? And if the Old Covenant was still in effect, wouldn't this mean that anyone who wanted to be justified still had to follow the Old Covenant, even during those 3 years of Jesus preaching about a New Covenant?
@LivingEchoes18902 ай бұрын
Yes, the tradition is that the Apostles were baptized prior to the Last Supper. They also were not truly sent as clergy until after the Resurrection at the Great Commission (if my memory serves). The Catechism of Trent states that holy writers are unanimous that the law of baptism became obligatory after the promulgation of the Gospel. Ludwig Ott teaches the same thing in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma I believe. Yes, the Old Law did not cease until the promulgation of the Gospel, which was at the Great Commission. I believe you can find more about that in the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, from Pope Eugene IV. Do you believe that men who are conceived in original sin can obtain the Beatific Vision without the personal reception of sacramental water baptism?
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Proverbs chapter 13 verses 12 and 19 make desire and hope synonymous and that is why Trent Session 6 chapters 6 and 7 uses the term hope. Proverbs 13:12, 19 Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul: desire when it cometh is a tree of life. ... The desire that is accomplished, delighteth the soul: fools hate them that flee from evil things. Since dogmatic council cannot contradict themselves chapter 7 defines that both hope and the charity of Jesus on the cross in baptism together are mandatory. Chapter 7 proves chapter 4. Trent Session 6 chapter 7. 7. ...For faith, unless [HOPE AND CHARITY[ be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by [CHARITY]. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without [HOPE AND CHARITY], [supernatural] faith cannot bestow: YOU CANNOT HAVE A MARRIAGE [WITHOUT] A BRIDE [OR] A GROOM!!!!!
@Deuterocomical3 ай бұрын
Thanks again for having me on! I did want to ask a few follow-up questions regarding some of the sources we discussed, for my own benefit and for anyone else who watches this. 1. You said at 29:10 that the Council of Trent mentions Mary as being the sole exception from all the decrees of the council, but I can only find this language in the 5th Session on Original Sin which states “it is not its intention to include in *this* decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God”. Is there anything like this in Session 6 on Justification, or were you extrapolating from this quote? 2. When you were talking about instrumental causes, were you referring to Sess 6 Ch 7 where it says “the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith”? I noticed at 26:27 you said “Trent said there's one instrumental cause of justification”, so did you mean to say “Trent only lists one instrumental cause of justification”? 3. What is the exact quote from the Catechism of St Peter Canisius that you mentioned at 40:40 where he “positively excludes” BOD by saying there are no exceptions, while citing Sess 6 Ch 4? The only quote I found that includes a footnote to Sess 6 Ch 4 was “it is a sacrament, I say, that is necessary not only for adults but also for littles ones”. Is this the quote you were referring to, or was it a different one? Much appreciated!
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
There is not enough truth for this guy to humble himself. 2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. This guy will know the truth in short time. Wisdom 5:6-8 ...we have erred from the way of truth, and the light of justice hath not shined unto us, and the sun of understanding hath not risen upon us. We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity and destruction, and have walked through hard ways, but the way of the Lord we have not known. What hath pride profited us? ...
@Rosaryofroses3 ай бұрын
Hello Seth, I have a question for you. Do you believe that if one receives baptism of desire out of necessity at death, and they should live, they must go seek the sacrament of baptism (of water)?
@LivingEchoes18903 ай бұрын
Thank you for your questions Seth, thank you for coming on and having a civil debate. I am planning on doing a brief video response with answers to your questions in the near future, including providing more citations from St. Peter Canisius' catechism.
@Deuterocomical3 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Sounds good, thanks!
@Deuterocomical3 ай бұрын
@@Rosaryofroses Not sure I understand your question. It sounds like this person did not actually end up dying, correct? If so, then they would still need to get Baptized. It’s similar to how someone who makes an Act of Perfect Contrition in danger of death, but ends up surviving, would still need to confess those sins Sacramentally.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Sedevacantism is the Supreme punishment from God when His people revolt from Him. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. What God did to Adam, he does at length with His people who revolt and disobey. Genesis 3:24 [And he cast out Adam]; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. When Solomon's Temple, which was the prototype of St. Peter's Basilica, was finished God gave a promise of a perpetual leader for His people and a warning about revolts for which He would take away the leader, land and the Temple. This applies to the NT Catholic Church. Carefully notice the conditional language of God! 2 Paralipomenon 7:16-20 For I have chosen, and have sanctified this place, that my name [may] be there for ever, and my eyes and my heart [may remain there perpetually]. And as for thee, if thou walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and keep my justices and my judgments: I will raise up the throne of thy kingdom, as I promised to David thy father, saying: There shall not fail thee a man of thy stock to be ruler in Israel. But if you turn away, and forsake my justices, and my commandments which I have set before you, and shall go and serve strange gods, and adore them, [I will pluck you up by the root out of my land which I have given you: and this house which I have sanctified to my name, I will cast away from before my face], and will make it a byword, and an example among all nations. 3 Kings 9:5-7 I will establish the throne of thy kingdom over Israel for ever, as I promised David… There shall not fail a man of thy race upon the throne of Israel. But if you and your children revolting…[I will take away Israel…and the temple…I will cast out of my sight;] Not only is there a prophecy for the Office of the Papacy [keys and the power to bind and loose] but also a prophecy of Sedevacantism; God taking away the Pope, sacrifice and the temple. Its in Isaias, Daniel and Paul. The keys and the power to bind and loose and sedevacantism. Isaias 22-20-25 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be [as a father] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the [house of Juda]. [And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open]. And I will fasten [him as a peg in a sure place], and he shall be for [a throne] of glory to the house of his father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. [In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it]. Daniel 8:11-12 And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength: [and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary]. And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, [because of sins]: and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper. Daniel 9:26-27 And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people with their leader [Paul VI] that shall come, shall destroy the city [Rome] and the sanctuary [St. Peter's Basilica]: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation [false altar]: [and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end]. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come [a revolt] first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he [Pius XII] be taken out of the way.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
DOES ANYONE WANT TO DEBATE SEDEVACANTISM AS BEING THE CORRECT POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY??
@LivingEchoes18903 ай бұрын
Hello Truth, what is your name? Myself and Luke did a few debates on Sedevacantism recently against Nick Santosusso. You can find them on the AWMD channel. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoWZlH59nJ1mhqs&ab_channel=AWMD
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 What is your position on sedevacantism?
@LivingEchoes18903 ай бұрын
@@Truth-ju7xv living-echoes.ghost.io/about/
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Alex, I try to keep it very simple. Its when a man knows past history, its then that he can recognize the present situation in time. Therefore what happened to the children of Israel in Jeremias time has happened to the Catholic church in these end times for which time is almost over. Israel revolted from God thru idolatry, therefore God handed over Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple to the evil and pagan King Nebuchannessor for which he killed the High priest Saraias. God did this again with the NT church for the same reason of idolatry [religious indifferentism]. God handed over Rome, St. Peter's Basilica and the Catholic structures around the world to evil freemasonic men. Pope Pius XII died maybe killed? Mary warned about this 3 times in visiting Catholic Europe. Eclesiastes 1:9-11 What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. [There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end.] What I just articulated is the whole truth and few can see it. Matthew 24:24 Sedevacantism is the supreme punishment from God! 2 Paralipomenon 7:16-20 For I have chosen, and have sanctified this place, that my name [may] be there for ever, and my eyes and my heart [may remain there perpetually]. And as for thee, if thou walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and keep my justices and my judgments: I will raise up the throne of thy kingdom, as I promised to David thy father, saying: There shall not fail thee a man of thy stock to be ruler in Israel. But if you turn away, and forsake my justices, and my commandments which I have set before you, and shall go and serve strange gods, and adore them, I will pluck you up by the root out of my land which I have given you: and this house which I have sanctified to my name, I will cast away from before my face, and will make it a byword, and an example among all nations. 3 Kings 9:5-7 I will establish the throne of thy kingdom over Israel for ever, as I promised David… There shall not fail a man of thy race upon the throne of Israel. But if you and your children revolting…I will take away Israel…and the temple…I will cast out of my sight; Pope Pius XI Ad Catholici Sacerdotii-1935 11. …The temple of Solomon, astonishing in richness and splendor, was still more wonderful in its rites and ordinances. Erected to the one true God as a tabernacle of the divine Majesty upon earth, it was also a sublime poem sung to that sacrifice and that priesthood, which, though [type and symbol]… Yet that ancient priesthood derived its greatest majesty and glory from being a [foretype] of the Christian priesthood; the priesthood of the New and eternal Covenant sealed with the Blood of the Redeemer of the world, Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. Pope Pius XI Quinquagesimo Ante - 1929 30. …On the first of December such a great number of them came to the Basilica of St. Peter’s for the jubilee indulgence that We have probably never seen that great temple so crowded. Pope Clement V Council of Vienne 1311-1312 A.D. 2. Not slight is the fornication of this house, …Therefore this house will be desolate and in disgrace, cursed and uninhabited, thrown into confusion and levelled to the dust, lowly, forsaken, inaccessible, spurned by the anger of the Lord, whom it has despised; let it not be lived in but reduced to a wilderness. …For the Lord did not choose the people on account of the place, but the place on account of the people. [Therefore the very place of the temple was made to share in the punishment of the people], as the Lord proclaimed openly to Solomon when he built the temple for him, to Solomon who was filled with wisdom like a river: But if your sons turn aside from me, not following and honouring me but going instead after strange gods and worshipping them, then I will cut them off from before me …and the temple which I have consecrated to my name I will cast out of my sight, and it will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. …
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 By the way Nick Santosusso is a complete willful bloated arrogant moron.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@StBonaventureEnthusiast is a prime example of how BOD heretics operate.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
BOD heretics like to cite Pope Pius IX regarding the theologians being part of the Magisterium but its very specific as to that point!!! The theologians must be of [constant and unanimous consent, all one and the same thing] on any particular doctrine of faith. Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII are clear on this point. Pope Leo XIII also gives a warning about what they are unanimous on too! St. Augustine and St. Gregory Nazienzan oppose "baptism of desire" among others too! BOD heretics are such liars, they are protestants doing mental gymnastics. Lol! Pope Pius IX Tuas Libenter Dec. 21, 1863 We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by [UNIVERSAL AND CONSTANT CONSENT] of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. Pope Leo XIII Providentissimus Deus - 1893 14. …His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this - that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret… against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”34 …Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, [UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST] (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, [UNDER THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SAME HOLY GHOST], WHETHER BY HER SOLEMN JUDGEMENT OR HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM35 - to interpret these passages in that identical sense, and to prove, by all the resources of science, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other interpretation. …[The Holy Fathers] “to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth - who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,”39 the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, [WHENEVER THEY ALL INTERPRET IN ONE AND THE SAME MANNER] any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their [UNANIMITY] clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. … 19. The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; … Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith - what they are unanimous in.
@LivingEchoes18903 ай бұрын
Another interesting quotation can be found in St. Gregory Nazianzen, who rejected salvation for the unbaptized: “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? If you prefer, we will put it this way: If, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You would then be satisfied to desire glory, as though that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!” (Oration on Divine Light, XL, #23)
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Just imagine the children of Israel seeing Pharaohs army coming after them and how much they DESIRED to be rescued [saved] from DEATH. God answered their DESIRE by providing a path thru water, the parting the Red Sea. Would their DESIRE be enough to save the children of Israel from Pharoah's army or must they take the action of going thru the water?? It was only by going thru the water that they were saved while simultaneously the water destroyed Pharoah's army which obviously represented the devil. Why do BOD heretics persist in their lies??? 1 Corinthians 10:2 And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: Exodus 14:19-31 And the angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, removing, went behind them: and together with him the pillar of the cloud, leaving the forepart, Stood behind, between the Egyptians' camp and the camp of Israel: and it was a dark cloud, and enlightening the night, so that they could not come at one another all the night. And when Moses had stretched forth his hand over the sea, the Lord took it away by a strong and burning wind blowing all the night, and turned it into dry ground: and the water was divided. And the children of Israel went in through the midst of the sea dried up: for the water was as a wall on their right hand and on their left. And the Egyptians pursuing went in after them, and all Pharao's horses, his chariots and horsemen through the midst of the sea, And now the morning watch was come, and behold the Lord looking upon the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, slew their host. And overthrew the wheels of the chariots, and they were carried into the deep. And the Egyptians said: Let us flee from Israel: for the Lord fighteth for them against us. And the Lord said to Moses: Stretch forth thy hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and horsemen. And when Moses had stretched forth his hand towards the sea, it returned at the first break of day to the former place: and as the Egyptians were fleeing away, the waters came upon them, and the Lord shut them up in the middle of the waves. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen of all the army of Pharao, who had come into the sea after them, neither did there so much as one of them remain. But the children of Israel marched through the midst of the sea upon dry land, and the waters were to them as a wall on the right hand and on the left: And the Lord delivered Israel on that day out of the hands of the Egyptians. And they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them: …
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine) Tractate 4 (John 1:19-33) 13. …It sometimes comes to pass that you see a catechumen who practises continence, bids farewell to the world, renounces all his possessions, distributing them to the poor; and although but a catechumen, instructed in the saving doctrine better, perhaps, than many of the faithful. It is to be feared regarding such an one that he may say to himself about holy baptism, whereby sins are remitted, What more shall I receive? Behold, I am better than this faithful man, and this - having in his mind those among the faithful who are either married, or who are perhaps ignorant, or who keep possession of their property, while he has given his to the poor - and considering himself better than those who have been already baptized, he deigns not to come to baptism, saying, Am I to receive what this man has, and this thinking of persons whom he despises, and, as it were, considers it an indignity to receive that which inferiors have received, because he appears to himself to be already better than they; and, nevertheless, all his sins are upon him, and without coming to saving baptism, wherein all sins are remitted, he cannot, with all his excellence, enter into the kingdom of heaven. Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine) Tractate 13 (John 3:22-29) 7. … To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace, should disdain to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord. For whatever the catechumen's proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism. Just as the people Israel were not rid of the Egyptians until they had come to the Red Sea, so no man is rid of the pressure of sins until he has come to the font of baptism. “His way [St. Ephrem] was divinely directed to the famous and saintly Bishop, Jacob [James] of Nisibis, to whom he told his story and by whom he was affectionately welcomed and admitted into the number of “Hearers,”-that is, Catechumens in the first stage of preparatory instruction.” Philip Schaff-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol. 13 Pg. 265 Ephesians 1:11-13 In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will. That we may be unto the praise of his glory, we who before hoped in Christ: In whom you also, [AFTER YOU HAD HEARD THE WORK OF TRUTH] (the gospel of your salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, [water baptism] St. Gregory Nazienzan Oration of Baptism 381 A.D. [Oration 40] 16. …As long as you are a Catechumen you are but in the porch of Religion; you must come inside, and cross the court, and observe the Holy Things, and look into the Holy of Holies, and be in company with the Trinity. … 22. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think that all other sensible men will range themselves on my side. … 23. …And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:- If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it? 24. Therefore since you have heard these words, come forward to it, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be ashamed through missing the Grace. Receive then the Enlightenment in due season, that darkness pursue you not, and catch you, and sever you from the Illumining. … 35. How shall this be? Remember always the parable, Luke 11:24 and so will you best and most perfectly help yourself. The unclean and malignant spirit is gone out of you, being chased by baptism. He will not submit to the expulsion, he will not resign himself to be houseless and homeless: He goes through waterless places, dry of the Divine Stream, and there he desires to abide. He wanders, seeking rest; he finds none. He lights on baptized souls, whose sins the font has washed away. He fears the water; he is choked with the cleansing, as the Legion were in the sea. Mark 5:13 Again he returns to the house whence he came out. He is shameless, he is contentious, he makes a fresh assault upon it, he makes a new attempt. If he finds that Christ has taken up His abode there, and has filled the place which he had vacated, he is driven back again, and goes off without success and has become an object of pity in his wandering state. …www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
THE [FAITH] MOVING GRACE AND THE PREPARATORY [WORKS] OF THE CATECHUMEN DO NOT JUSTIFY!! POPE PAUL III HAS CLEARLY AND DOGMATICALLY DEFINED THAT ASSENTING TO [FAITH] FOR WHICH THE CATECHUMEN BEGINS TO DESIRE/HOPE, WHICH CAUSES HIM TO DO THE PREPARATORY WORKS THAT PRECEDE WATER BAPTISM DOES NOT JUSTIFY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Council of Trent Session 6 chapter 8. And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith AND FREELY, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified FREELY, BECAUSE THAT NONE OF THOSE THINGS WHICH PRECEDE JUSTIFICATION-WHETHER FAITH OR WORKS-MERIT THE GRACE ITSELF OF JUSTIFICATION. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. THE GRACE THAT JUSTIFIES IS NOT MOVING GRACE [FAITH], ITS SANCTIFYING GRACE THAT JUSTIFIES! Council of Trent Session 6 ch. 7. 7. This disposition [desire/hope], or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, [BUT ALSO THE SANCTIFICATION AND RENEWAL OF THE INWARD MAN], through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God [WHO WASHES AND SANCTIFIES GRATUITOULSY] [SIGNING] AND ANOINTING WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE, WHO IS THE PLEADGE OF OUR INHERITANCE. Council of Trent Session 6 chapter 10 On the increase of Justification received. Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice [UNTO SANCTIFICATION], they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.” Titus 3:4-8 But when the goodness and kindness [CHARITY] of God our Saviour appeared: Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, [he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost]; Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: That, being justified by his grace, [we may be heirs], according to hope of life everlasting. It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, [MAY BE CAREFUL TO EXCEL IN GOOD WORKS. THESE THINGS ARE GOOD AND PROFITABLE UNTO MEN.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
GALATIANS WHOLE CHAPTER 3 PROVES THAT THE OT SAINTS NEEDED BAPTISM. CIRCUMCISION [OLD LAW] WAS A PROMISE TO SOMETHING ELSE. "And if you be Christ's, then are you the [seed of Abraham], heirs according to the promise."
@family_room_tv77183 ай бұрын
I still want to know the answer to the question: “if Mary was saved via the New Covenant, what was the instrumental cause of her justification”? Regardless of whether the Council of Trent lists her as some sort of exception, this question still needs an answer.
@priestsfortherestorationof93903 ай бұрын
Her Immaculate Conception. This single act of Grace, at the moment of Her conception restored Her to the Innocence of our first parents before the fall from Grace. God's Divine Plan for our redemption included The Logos (Word/Second Person of the Divine Trinity) To become flesh. Since Genesis tells us the original sin of Adam is passed through the flesh, The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved because She alone gave flesh to Jesus, a flesh and nature that was created through Him, with Him and in Him. St. Paul affirms this when he says that Jesus was like us in all things but sin. Reason fills in the rest. God bless and keep the Faith. Bp Tetherow, SVC
@family_room_tv77183 ай бұрын
@@priestsfortherestorationof9390 Thank you for the response. And is it correct to say that Mary had the effects of Baptism, but did not receive the Baptismal character until she got water Baptized?
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
The fact that you thumb your nose at the Holy Ghost speaking at the Council of Trent, you are quite arrogant and prideful. Not a good sign for you and your soul. The Council of Trent Session 5 Decree on Original Sin 5. ...This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, [that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God]; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews. Council of Trent Session 6 Canons On Justification CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-[except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin]; let him be anathema. ***The instrument was the foremerits of the passion of Jesus on the cross. This was ordained by God for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ because God has no part with corrupted flesh. Mary was saved in a much greater way, she even says as much! All men have fallen into the pit and need to be taken out. Mary was prevented from falling into the pit all together!! Luke 1:46-49 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced [IN GOD MY SAVIOR]. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, [HATH DONE GREAT THINGS TO ME]; and holy is his name. The reason God ordained all this is because the devil went after a woman named Eve, the weaker sex, the one who had no authority in the family. So God ordained the greatest humiliation upon the devil, and that would be being defeated by a future woman; Mary, the Mother of God!!! Its God power working thru the Living Ark of the New Testament. Judith 9:11- Lift up thy arm as from the beginning, and crush their power with thy power: let their power fall in their wrath, who promise themselves to violate thy sanctuary, and defile the dwelling place of thy name, and to beat down with their sword the horn of thy altar. Bring to pass, O Lord, that his pride may be cut off with his own sword. Let him be caught in the net of his own eyes in my regard, and do thou strike him by the graces of the words of my lips. Give me constancy in my mind, that I may despise him: and fortitude that I may overthrow him. For this will be a glorious monument for thy name, WHEN HE SHALL FALL BY THE HAND OF A WOMAN. FOR THY POWER, O LORD, is not in a multitude, nor is thy pleasure in the strength of horses, nor from the beginning have the proud been acceptable to thee: BUT THE PRAYER OF THE HUMBLE AND THE MEEK HATH ALWAYS PLEASED THEE.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@family_room_tv7718 No it is not correct to say that Mary had the effects of baptism because she was created without Original Sin altogether. She was baptized out of humility as she did her purification after the birth of Jesus. Mary understood the great things that God did for her.
@priestsfortherestorationof93903 ай бұрын
@@family_room_tv7718 She did not need to be baptized with water because She was free of Original sin. Baptism is to Original sin what absolution is to actual sin.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Not everyone who is baptized, are of the elect. Many are called into the kingdom of heaven on earth [Catholic Church] but few are chosen for the kingdom of heaven that is in heaven. Matthew 20:16 So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen. Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary Matt. 20 Ver. 16. Few chosen: only such as have not despised their caller, but followed and believed him; for men believed not, but of their own free will. S. Aug. l. i, ad Simplic. q. ii. B. - Hence the rejection of the Jews and of negligent Christians, and the conversion of strangers, who come and take their place, by a conversion both of faith and morals. On the part of God all are called. Mat. xi. 28. Come to me all, &c. In effect, many after their call, have attained to faith and justification; but few in comparison are elected to eternal glory, because the far greater part do not obey the call, but refuse to come, whilst many of those who come fall away again; and thus very few, in comparison with those that perish, will at the last day be selected for eternal glory. T. Old Testament example of few saved. Ecclesiasticus 16:11-12 He had not pity on them, destroying the whole nation that extolled themselves in their sins. So did he with the six hundred thousand footmen, who were gathered together in the hardness of their heart: and if one had been stiffnecked, it is a wonder if he had escaped unpunished: For mercy and wrath are with him. He is mighty to forgive, and to pour out indignation: Numbers 26:65 For the Lord had foretold that they should die in the wilderness. And none remained of them, but Caleb the son of Jephone, and Josue the son of Nun. [2 men only]
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Wrong! When anyone speaks in opposition to the dogmas of the Catholic Church, they are outside the Catholic Church and heretics.
@CatholicHusband3 ай бұрын
They need obstinacy to be heretics correct?
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@CatholicHusband They would be a material heretic until shown the truth of his error, thereafter if he rejects the truth for the error it becomes a heresy. 1917 Code of Canon Law Canon 2200.2 When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven. Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic, [after the first and second admonition], avoid:
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
At the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostrae Aetate, the document that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version: We must cast the Declaration on the Jews in a much more positive form, one not so timid, but much more loving ... For the sake of our common heritage we, the children of Abraham according to the spirit, must foster a special reverence and love for the children of Abraham according to the flesh. As children of Adam, they are our kin, as children of Abraham they are Christ's blood relatives. 2. So far as the guilt of Jews in the death of our Savior is concerned, the rejection of the Messiah by His own, is according to Scripture, a mystery-a mystery given us for our instruction, not for our self-exaltation ... We cannot sit in judgement on the one time leaders of Israel-God alone is their judge. Much less can we burden later generations of Jews with any burden of guilt for the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, for the death of the Savior of the world, except that universal guilt in which we all have a part ... In clear and unmistakable language, we must deny, therefore, that the Jews are guilty of our Savior's death. We must condemn especially those who seek to justify, as Christian deeds, discrimination, hatred and even persecution of Jews ... 3. I ask myself, Venerable Brothers, whether we should not humbly acknowledge before the whole world that, toward their Jewish brethren, Christians have all too often not shown themselves as true Christians, as faithful followers of Christ. How many [Jews] have suffered in our own time? How many died because Christians were indifferent and kept silent? ... If in recent years, not many Christian voices were raised against those injustices, at least let ours now be heard in humility. Oesterreicher, pp. 197-198 Antipope Paul VI Nostrae Aetate October 28, 1965 4. …As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12) Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. …
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Brother Michael and Brother Peter of Most Holy Family Monastery are spot on and correct regarding the dogmas of the Catholic faith. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. "Baptism of desire", "Baptism of blood" does not exist and invincible ignorance is perverted and misunderstood as to what Pius IX said.
@Rosaryofroses3 ай бұрын
Baptism of desire and of blood do not exist as a way of justifying, but they are legitimate terms that express certain graces given, just as Jesus Christ said the following: "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished? [Luke 12:50] The saints when using these terms were often imitating the symbolic language of Our Lord there. Baptism of desire is another way of expressing perfect contrition, but that does not mean it occurs before the sacrament of baptism is actually received. Similarly baptism of blood is another way of expressing the entire remission of sins and temporal punishment that occurs in the martyrs who have already received the sacrament of baptism. It is only a manner of speaking. Of course, in dogmatic statements, such expressions are not used because Councils are not the place to use symbolic or poetic language.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@Rosaryofroses In charity, the fact that the term "baptism of desire" does not exist, it should not be used because it causes confusion. Terms like [prevenient grace] or moving grace or actual grace, attrition, faith should be used not "baptism of desire". All of these correct terms signify God's help, God giving a power to the child of wrath. This is what the gospel of John chapter 1 verses 12 and 13 speak of. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, [he gave them power to be made the sons of God], to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Because First Justification was defined and the reasons for it, at the Council of Trent Session 6 chapters 1-8 and other Sessions and Proems, Traditional Catholics should adhere to those dogmatic definitions and not what theologians have had to say on the matter. They do not define or further define God's truths. God allows this to happen to see who adheres to the truth and who adheres to the errors of fallible men which becomes a heresy with obstinance. Its a test of faith. Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine-1520 4. For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. 1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Daniel 12:11-12 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand. …
@LivingEchoes18903 ай бұрын
@@Truth-ju7xv I agree that "baptism of desire" has become a confusing title, but the use of the title is not intrinsically evil or heretical. It all depends on what one means by the title. Same with Baptism of Blood.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@LivingEchoes1890 Wow, what a contradiction, you say its confusing while at the same time you imply it has a benefit. You don't make any sense. Lies, untruth is intrinsically evil. Perfect charity demands preciseness and only the simple truth. Matthew 5:37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
@LivingEchoes18903 ай бұрын
@@Truth-ju7xv Using the title of "Baptism of desire" is not a lie. If one means "perfect contrition" by that title, that is not intrinsically evil. If one means a man can attain eternal life without water baptism, then he has chosen an evil meaning. If one defines "Baptism of Blood" as "shedding one's blood for Christ", that is not evil or heretical either. It's just a poetic way of saying it. Do you believe that using the titles themselves, regardless of what is meant by them, is evil and heretical?
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Theologians are meaningless regarding God's truths and this is because its the pope who is the universal teacher of the Catholic Church! Its he that is infallible, not Saints, theologians and doctors. Popes defines God's truths. Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council Session 4 chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff 1. And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, [head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people]. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. First Vatican Council Sess. 4 Chapter 4 Canons 7-8 7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. 8. But since in this very age when the salutary [effectiveness] of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Hey Seth, what can you say when the Holy Ghost clearly references water and the Word of God in making a [new creation] from the beginning in Genesis chapter 1. There is a transformation from the earth being void, empty and darkness to light and the creatures that come from the waters. Its all about light and life from water. Genesis 1:2-5, 20-21 [And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made]. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light [Day], and the darkness [Night]; and there was evening and morning one day. ...God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. St. Paul makes a reference to water in Genesis in 1 Thessalonians 4:5-8. He is implicitly saying the children of the Day and of the light have received water baptism for which they receive, infused at once, the supernatural faith, hope and charity. 1 Thessalonians 5:5-8 For all you are the children of [light], and children of the [day]: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore, let us not sleep, as others do; but let us watch, and be sober. For they that sleep, sleep in the night; and they that are drunk, are drunk in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, having on the breastplate of [faith] and [charity], and for a helmet the [hope] of salvation. Ephesians 5:26-27 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. Council of Trent Session 6 chapter 7. 7. ...For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, [all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity]. John 1:1-13 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, he gave them power [faith] to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermo 12 de Passione A.D. 460 Through the birth of baptism an innumerable multitude of children of God are born, of whom it is said: [who were born not of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of man, but of God]. (PL 54, 355-357)
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Seth, is pathetically all over the place. He runs from the dogmatic truth.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Pope Pius XII has reaffirmed the dogma of John 3:5 with his Apostolic Constitution in 1952. He says that all those who are not water baptism go to hell. Pope Pius XII Exsul Familia Nazarethana Apostolic Constitution - August 1,1952 5. When the priests are absent, what ruin for those who must leave this world either unbaptized or still chained by sin! What sadness for their friends, [who will not have them as companions in the repose of eternal life]! What grief for all, and whet blasphemy by some, due to the absence of the priest and of his ministry. 6. One can readily understand what the dread of passing evils can do, and what great eternal evil follows! On the other hand, when the priests are at their posts they help everyone with all the strength the Lord has given them. Some are baptized, others make their peace with God [confession]. None is deprived of receiving the Body of Christ in Communion; all are consoled, edified and urged to pray to God, Who can wand off all dangers! Therefore, having seriously considered the importance of this whole matter, and being impelled by the examples of Our Predecessors, and having given careful attention to the views of Adeodato G. Cardinal Piazza, Bishop of Sabina and Poggio Mirteto and Secretary of the Consistorial Congregation, we, hereby, do establish and prescribe all which is contained therein. We now decree that what we hereby establish shall not be subject to attack for any reason whatsoever, even though it be enacted without the consent of those who have or claim to have the right to express their opinion on this matter, or even if they were not consulted or their opinion was not accepted. Furthermore, we declare that what we, hereby, have stated shall possess and retain its force, its validity, and its effectiveness until such time as it shall have obtained its full results. Finally, we publicly state that all those who are expected or will be expected to benefit by it should do so by careful observance. We reject as null and void every contrary measure, regardless of who impudently proposes to do so, whether knowingly or through ignorance, and irrespective of what his authority may be. This Constitution shall remain valid, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, including any other Apostolic Constitutions or dispositions of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, as mentioned above or other Acts, however worthy of special mention or calling for canonical derogation. No one, therefore, shall modify this text which expresses what we, hereby, establish, ordain, reject, direct, unite, admonish, forbid, command, and desire, nor shall anyone rashly oppose it. But if someone presume to do so, he should know that he will incur the wrath of the omnipotent God, and of His apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Castel Gandolfo, near Rome, on August 1, the feast of St. Peter in Chains, in 1952, the 14th year of our Pontificate. www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12exsul.htm www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19520801_exsul-familia.html
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Seth is anathametized at the 11:15 - 11:23 minute mark because he confounds the sacrament of baptism with the sacrament of Penance. A catechumen cannot have perfect Contrition but only attrition. ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE CANON I.-If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema. CANON II.-If any one, confounding the sacraments, saith that baptism is itself the sacrament of Penance, as though these two Sacraments were not distinct, and that therefore Penance is not rightly called a second plank after shipwreck; let him be anathema.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
Not everything in catechisms is infallible. Catechism of the Council of Trent page 7. ...Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. [Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide]." www.catholicsociety.com/documents/Catechism_of_the_Council%20of_Trent.pdf
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
By the way, in St. Alphonsus' erroneous teaching on "baptism of desire" he teaches that the soul who died in "baptism of desire" did not receive the indelible mark on the soul. This should prove to the BOD heretics that fallible men can and do make mistakes. An error becomes a heresy, when a person is shown the truth of the error and they obstinately adhere to the error, its then that it is a heresy. God allows heresies to expose liars. St. Alphonsus even admits the liability of punishment is not removed. St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96 “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, [BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER TO BE IMPRINTED], nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.”
@StBonaventureEnthusiast3 ай бұрын
It’s not just St Alphonsus, it’s also St Thomas: “Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” - Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11-12 This is one of those issues of people who don’t actually read the theological tradition and instead proof text random quotes they don’t understand. The real problem here is that those who deny baptism of desire and blood read magisterial documents, and, since they don’t have any understanding of the theological tradition and language, they assume it must mean what the words mean in their poorly educated interpretation. Ultimately it’s just a Protestant epistemology, except instead of privately interpreting one book you have the added trouble of privately interpreting thousands of magisterial documents. This is not how Catholics have ever behaved, nor are Catholics free to depart from the consensus of the schools, as Bl Pius IX taught in Tuas Libentur, and baptism of blood/desire are objectively the teaching of the schoolmen.
@CatholicHusband3 ай бұрын
@@StBonaventureEnthusiastYou are welcome to debate this topic on a livestream in the same format you saw here, Does the Magisterium teach that a man can obtain the kingdom of heaven if he is not born again of water and the Holy Ghost? What say you?
@StBonaventureEnthusiast3 ай бұрын
@@CatholicHusband yes, this isn’t even controversial among the theologians. Fr Cekada actually has a good article on this if you want a very simple summary. You can also easily find a copy of the Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB online and read its much more in depth treatise on the question. And again, I don’t see any point in debating questions that are cut and dry in the theological tradition. The last thing you should be doing is debates, what you actually need is a basic formation in the faith, starting with logic/philosophy and fundamental theology. I’m happy to recommend more books if you need them. This article is a good brief summary as well: iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2008/04/baptism-of-desire-interview.html?m=1
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
@@StBonaventureEnthusiast No, you are dead wrong. Lets look at your heretical reply because its a very important error that you made. Here is your quote; "which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity" Your error flies right in the face of the First Vatican Council Session 3 chapter 3 Canon 7. Faith is a moving grace [prevenient grace] that works outside of the Catholic Church, not thru baptism [Charity]. You are putting the kart before the horse. First Vatican Council Session 3 chapter 3. And so faith in itself, [even though it may not work through charity], is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God himself when he accepts and collaborates with his grace which he could have rejected. The Council of Trent has defined that faith [prevenient grace] is made profitable when the catechumen applies the work of charity of Jesus on the cross in baptism. Water baptism/charity of God gives the supernatural faith, hope and charity. This is what the catechumen begs for. He already acted upon the faith call and said yes. Without applying Jesus' work of charity in baptism, faith [MOVING GRACE] is dead and profitless; OF NO AVAIL. And that is why Pope Paul III cited Colossians ch. 2 before saying faith worketh by charity. It refers to water baptism, the circumcision of Christ. Both desire/hope and charity must be added together otherwise no justification. Here is what Trent says with specificity. Council of Trent Session 6 chapter 7. 7. ...For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, [BUT FAITH WHICH WORKETH BY CHARITY]. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: ... Colossians 2:11-12 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, [but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism], in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. Pope Pius XII Haurietis Aquas Draw Refreshing Water From the Sacred Heart - 1956 77. Concerning the meaning of this symbol, which was known even to the earliest Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, St. Thomas Aquinas, echoing something of their words, writes as follows: “From the side of Christ, there flowed water for cleansing, blood for redeeming. Hence blood is associated with the sacrament of the Eucharist, water with the sacrament of Baptism, which has its cleansing power by virtue of the blood of Christ.”[81] 78. What is here written of the side of Christ, opened by the wound from the soldier, should also be said of the Heart which was certainly reached by the stab of the lance, since the soldier pierced it precisely to make certain that Jesus Christ crucified was really dead. Hence the wound of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, now that He has completed His mortal life, remains through the course of the ages a striking image of that spontaneous [CHARITY] by which God gave His only begotten Son for the redemption of men and by which Christ expressed such passionate love for us that He offered Himself as a bleeding victim on Calvary for our sake: “Christ loved us and delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.”[82] Pope Pius XI Quas Primas - 1925 15. … The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, AND CANNOT ACTUALLY ENTER EXCEPT BY FAITH AND BY BAPTISM, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. Titus 3:4-7 But when the goodness and kindness [CHARITY] of God our Saviour appeared: Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, [he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;] Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.
@StBonaventureEnthusiast3 ай бұрын
@@Truth-ju7xv I’m not interested in your private interpretation of texts you don’t understand, you’re following a Protestant epistemology which has led you into multiple theological errors. Also the Thomistic school has been declared safe, and the Thomistic school holds to baptism of desire/blood, therefore to claim that’s heretical violates the indefectibility of the Church, which is itself heretical. There’s a reason even sedevacantists who have some degree of actual theological education don’t hold to your position.
@Truth-ju7xv3 ай бұрын
As the flesh had to be marked by God in the Old Testament in circumcision to be a member of the Old Testament church and if you were not marked in the flesh, that soul was destroyed out of God's OT church. This is a prototype of the indelible mark of baptism on the souls in the New Testament and if there is no mark, then that soul is not a member and is not purchased by God because God's mark is not on that soul. God threatened death on Moses for not circumcising his second son which proves that without water baptism there is no First Justification but only death. Genesis 17:10, 14 This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised:The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be [destroyed out of his people]: because he hath broken my covenant. Exodus 4:24-26 And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him [Moses], and would have killed him. Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and circumcised the foreskin of her son, and touched his feet and said: A bloody spouse art thou to me. And he let him go after she had said A bloody spouse art thou to me, because of the circumcision. John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he [cannot enter into] the kingdom of God. Colossians 2:11-12 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the [circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism], in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. Galatians 3:26-29 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. ****And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham,**** heirs according to the promise. 1 Corinthians 6:20 For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body. Haydock’s Catholic bible commentary 1 Cor. 6 Ver. 13. &c. Meat for the belly. That is, meat is necessary for the support of nature, though this or that kind of meat be indifferent: and we ought to reflect, that God in a short time will destroy both the meats, and the appetite of eating, and the body shall shortly die, but it shall rise again. - Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ . . . and the temple of the Holy Ghost. Man consists of soul and body; by baptism he is made a member of that same mystical body, the Church, of which Christ is the head: In baptism both the soul and body are consecrated to God: they are made the temple of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the spirit and grace of God inhabits in men, who are sanctified. Christ redeemed both our souls and bodies, both which he designs to sanctify, and to glorify hereafter in heaven; so that we must look upon both body and soul as belonging to Christ, and not as our own.