The "God" Argument ... (Moved from another thread)

[mtommer]

This explains it better than I can. Suffice it to say, from the earliest has the view of baptism being normative been held. I stand by the Catechism, and thus by the Holy Spirit.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Nece...of_Baptism.asp

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

[mtommer]

Originally Posted by Cross-court

mtommer,

The new "catechism" is chuck full of heresy, error and apostasy, because it contains all of the heretical teachings of Vatican II and even some more.

The "catechism" says that "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (#841) Do you believe that?

Sorry, but the Muslims don't adore God. They don't believe in Jesus, and Jesus is God, and it is JESUS that will judge mankind on the last day, so it also contains blasphemy.

Okay, I get it, you don't like Vatican II. However, the Catechism and all teachings therein are backed up by Tradition and Scripture. It's that simple for me. While I realize not all teaching is dogmatic, I do not see fault in the Catechism even now but rather ernest effort in putting forth Christ's message to the world.

[Cross-court]

Originally Posted by mtommer

This explains it better than I can. Suffice it to say, from the earliest has the view of baptism being normative been held. I stand by the Catechism, and thus by the Holy Spirit.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Nece...of_Baptism.asp

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

Are you aware that there were a handful of early Church Fathers that believed in these so-called "baptism of blood", but that the great majority didn't and that some even wrote against it?

The Church infallibly teaches that Water Baptism is necessary and that John 3:5 is literal. The Church has never taught officially nor infallibly nor has any Pope in any Encyclical that "baptism of blood or desire" are substitues when the sacrament can't be had.

Btw what you quote is erroneous, and it doesn't even support "baptism of blood" because it says: "This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost." The Sacrament of Baptism can't be "lost", when you're validly baptized you can't be baptized again because it is sacrilege to do so. You only get baptized once.

What you quote was probably talking about sanctifying grace, or justification, which can be lost and regained but you can't be in that state if you haven't been baptized first in the first place, because one enters the Church though the Sacrament of baptism.

So I can hardly see how what you quote is an exception to the sacrament, because it isn't. It's from Tertullian, a Church Father, not a Pope.


Read this:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

I'm done talking about this. You're just another heretic looking for exceptions to the 7 times defined dogma.

[mtommer]

Originally Posted by Cross-court

I'm done talking about this.

Of course you are. You continue to insist that Vatican II is a heresy, somethig the Church DOES NOT put forth. In fact, that Vatican II can be "loosely interpreted" has been condemned by the Church (the problem that arose from Vatican II). Again, it all comes down to whether or not the current teachings put forth can be defended through Tradition and Scripture. They can be. Further, what was defined in the dogmatic councils has NOT been changed but rather further expounded upon. Vatican II was NOT a dogmatic council. It should be noted that the process of Vatican II was preceeded by Vatican I which was cut short. The Church, pre the five "heretical" Popes, saw the need for clarrification and unification with the modernistic way of life emerging.

One need only look to the thief next to Christ on the cross to see that water is not mandotory for God. At the same time, we also see the importance of Baptism when Jesus is baptized by John. These two examples are COMPIMENTARY, not adversarial, in context.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by ttbrowne

Nothing is exactly what happens when you die. But you inferred that my life means nothing. You're wrong. Goodness is worth something, just not to your god.
The eternal reward? Are you going there? If so, It doesn't sound like a reward to me. Sounds more like a...punishment.
An eternity around people like yourself...

I don't get how all the heresay of ages ago can be taken seriously.
These were just people from way back who wrote some things down, some of them were good wisdom.

A lot of people just built on this and called it a religion.

Many people don't want to die and have no where to go, that's where religion fills a void. There's a fear of having everything end, that is how it is and there's no way out.

There is no special reason for our lives, why should there have to be?
We live in the moment, happy today, sad tomorrow until the last breath, nothing more.
What we do or say is no more special than a spider making a web, however intricate it may be.
It's somewhat disturbing but not to worry, it won't last to long.

[Cross-court]

Originally Posted by mtommer

Of course you are. You continue to insist that Vatican II is a heresy, somethig the Church DOES NOT put forth. In fact, that Vatican II can be "loosely interpreted" has been condemned by the Church (the problem that arose from Vatican II). Again, it all comes down to whether or not the current teachings put forth can be defended through Tradition and Scripture. They can be. Vatican II was NOT a dogmatic council. It should be noted that the process of Vatican II was preceeded by Vatican I which was cut short. The Church, pre the five "heretical" Popes, saw the need for clarrification and unification with the modernistic way of life emerging.

How old are you? I don't want to keep talking about it because you don't know anything about Catholic teaching, so I'm wasting my time.

Vatican II contains heresy and attempted to teach doctrines that were already infallibly condemned by the Church, that's a fact. Never has the Church, any Council or Pope attempted to do that in the whole history of the Church, because it can't be done.

You obviously don't know the first thing about infallibility, what an ex cathedra teaching is, or about heresies and doctrines condemned infallibly or by the Magisterium.

The job of the Church is to CLEARLY explain and expound the Faith, not to teach ambiguities and things that can be "loosely interpreted" which only lead to error and heresy and consequently to Hell. That's what heretics do. They cover their teachings under the guise of ambiguity, affirming one thing here, and then contradicting it on the next page. This is Modernism (which was condemned by Pius X), but you obviously don't know anything about this either because you're a modernist yourself.

The modernist believes teachings and dogmas can be changed and "updated" or "adapted" to fit the times, but "since Truth cannot contradict Truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the Faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted." -Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8. 19 December 1513.

Have you even read the Syllabus of Errors?

#80: "The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization." -Condemned


You're over your head here and dealing with things you don't even understand.

Originally Posted by mtommer

Further, what was defined in the dogmatic councils has NOT been changed but rather further expounded upon.

Oh really? And did you know that Dogmas have to be always believes as they are once declared and that their meaning can never change?

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Nothing has been changed eh? Please read these files carefully and then say that again:

The changes in the Vatican II "council"

The changes to the Mass

The changes regarding partaking in non-Catholic worship

The changes regarding Ecclesiology (the nature of the Church)

Originally Posted by mtommer

One need only look to the thief next to Christ on the cross to see that water is not mandotory for God. At the same time, we also see the importance of Baptism when Jesus is baptized by John. These two examples are COMPIMENTARY, not adversarial, in context.

The good thief died under the Old Law, before the Law of Baptism was made obligatory after Jesus's Resurrection. It's like saying "well how was Moses saved without being baptized? Or Daniel?"

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Cross-court]

Whoops, the links didn't work, here they are:

The changes in the Vatican II "council":http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/8_VaticanII.pdf

The changes to the Mass:http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/9_NewMass.pdf

The changes regarding partaking in non-Catholic worship:http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/18_ncworship.pdf

The changes regarding Ecclesiology (the nature of the Church):http://www.traditionalmass.org/artic...=69&catname=15

[Cross-court]

I'm out of this thread, don't reply until you read all of those files carefully.

See ya.

[asdfuogh]

I don't know if anyone has already said this... but the "Big Bang" is a theory, and like all other scientific theories, that means it is basically an idea that is very widely accepted and no evidence to the contrary has been put forth with any credit. And, yes, there is evidence for the Big Bang, as evidenced by the cosmic waves hypothesized by the Big Bang theory. So much for that first post...

[TennisNinja]

Personally I don't care what you believe. I for one am not religious and support the evolution theory, but whenever some religious nutcase goes and tries to convert me, screaming at me that my life won't be fullfilled and I'm living a false life, that's when I get ticked off.