The Bible is not a private devotional text; it is fundamentally a liturgical book, designed to be experienced and understood within the structured cycles of the Church's liturgical calendar.
Denzinger #464 cites Lyons II (1272-1274): “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Vienne, (1311-1312) cited in Denzinger #482: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation”
Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Session 6)
Council of Trent, Session 5 (1546), #4: “If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Liguori, commenting on Trent:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)
Augustine’s own claims on the matter:
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).
“For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Epistle to Boniface; Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)
St. Ambrose: “No one is excepted: not the infant, nor the one prevented by any necessity’ (Abraham, Patrol. Lat. 14:500 ).
Council of Vienne, (1311-1312) cited in Denzinger #482: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation”
Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Session 6)
Council of Trent, Session 5 (1546), #4: “If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Liguori, commenting on Trent:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)
Augustine’s own claims on the matter:
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).
“For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Epistle to Boniface; Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)
St. Ambrose: “No one is excepted: not the infant, nor the one prevented by any necessity’ (Abraham, Patrol. Lat. 14:500 ).
Forwarded from Telega ✉️ Notifications
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❗️ Tired of one-sided coverage of events in western media? It's time to subscribe to Sputnik Africa!
Here you will find:
🔺 News about Africa and around the world;
🔺 The latest information on the Ukrainian conflict;
🔺 Exclusive interviews, analyses and expert insights;
🔺 Podcasts, videos with English subtitles, and simple explanations of key issues.
👉 Get hip on Africa's latest. Subscribe to Sputnik Africa: https://www.tg-me.com/+C8kAC6NkiFU4NjBi
Here you will find:
🔺 News about Africa and around the world;
🔺 The latest information on the Ukrainian conflict;
🔺 Exclusive interviews, analyses and expert insights;
🔺 Podcasts, videos with English subtitles, and simple explanations of key issues.
👉 Get hip on Africa's latest. Subscribe to Sputnik Africa: https://www.tg-me.com/+C8kAC6NkiFU4NjBi
Denzinger #464 cites Lyons II (1272-1274): “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Vienne, (1311-1312) cited in Denzinger #482: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation”
Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Session 6)
Council of Trent, Session 5 (1546), #4: “If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Liguori, commenting on Trent:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)
Augustine’s own claims on the matter:
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).
“For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Epistle to Boniface; Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)
St. Ambrose: “No one is excepted: not the infant, nor the one prevented by any necessity’ (Abraham, Patrol. Lat. 14:500 ).
Council of Vienne, (1311-1312) cited in Denzinger #482: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation”
Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Session 6)
Council of Trent, Session 5 (1546), #4: “If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Liguori, commenting on Trent:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)
Augustine’s own claims on the matter:
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).
“For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Epistle to Boniface; Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)
St. Ambrose: “No one is excepted: not the infant, nor the one prevented by any necessity’ (Abraham, Patrol. Lat. 14:500 ).
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216):
Quote: “The Pope holds the place of the true God.”
Pope Boniface VIII (1302):
Quote: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius IX (1864):
Quote: “The Pope…is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
Quote: “The Pope holds the place of the true God.”
Pope Boniface VIII (1302):
Quote: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius IX (1864):
Quote: “The Pope…is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
This is the question Catholic apologists NEVER explain to me, so I welcome anyone to do so.
If you can remove a pope after having held firmly to him for 1600 years, what honestly prevents you from doing that next week? What prevents you from telling me next week that the seat had been empty this whole time, contrary to appearances?
And if you can withdraw a pope, you can withdraw a council, you can withdraw anything. Absolutely anything.
And in fact, you did. You withdrew Pope Felix II's badass council condemning Constantius's Arianism.
If you can remove a pope after having held firmly to him for 1600 years, what honestly prevents you from doing that next week? What prevents you from telling me next week that the seat had been empty this whole time, contrary to appearances?
And if you can withdraw a pope, you can withdraw a council, you can withdraw anything. Absolutely anything.
And in fact, you did. You withdrew Pope Felix II's badass council condemning Constantius's Arianism.
If you have to exist in exile from the Church to be a member of the Church, you are part of a self-refuting religion.
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
If you have to exist in exile from the Church to be a member of the Church, you are part of a self-refuting religion.
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
This fact seems to utterly escape those who flee to the SSPX or the strip mall chapels of the Sedevacantists. It is what fuels the paradoxical fantasy of “recognize and resist.”
You cannot have your One True Church while rejecting its institutional existence.
Why is this not more obvious?
As a Roman Catholic you have to believe:
1. Constantinople I was wrong to appoint Flavian against the Pope’s wishes.
2. Chalcedon was wrong about Canon 28.
3. Constantinople II was wrong to assert their authority over Pope Vigilius.
4. Constantinople III was wrong to apply Matt 16 to Constantine’s empire.
5. Nicaea II was wrong about its definition about what makes a council Ecumenical. And about icons of the Father. And statues.
All of these are ECUMENICAL Councils btw. At some point you’re just admittedly NOT the church of the First Millennium.
1. Constantinople I was wrong to appoint Flavian against the Pope’s wishes.
2. Chalcedon was wrong about Canon 28.
3. Constantinople II was wrong to assert their authority over Pope Vigilius.
4. Constantinople III was wrong to apply Matt 16 to Constantine’s empire.
5. Nicaea II was wrong about its definition about what makes a council Ecumenical. And about icons of the Father. And statues.
All of these are ECUMENICAL Councils btw. At some point you’re just admittedly NOT the church of the First Millennium.
"We do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."
—Pope St Pius X
—Pope St Pius X
Vatican 2 is dogmatic - 5 documents proving it:
1. vatican.va/content/france…
2. vatican2voice.org/91docs/opening…
3. vatican.va/content/paul-v…
4. Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii #104 (RCs are bound to more than merely what is "extraordinary magisterium") : vatican.va/content/pius-x…
5. Si Diligis of Pius XII Obedience is necessary even if you think the pope is wrong: papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sidi…
1. vatican.va/content/france…
2. vatican2voice.org/91docs/opening…
3. vatican.va/content/paul-v…
4. Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii #104 (RCs are bound to more than merely what is "extraordinary magisterium") : vatican.va/content/pius-x…
5. Si Diligis of Pius XII Obedience is necessary even if you think the pope is wrong: papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sidi…
St. John Maximovitch said, “The psalms and the hymns that simply gratify the ear but do not inspire somebody to pray are not acceptable.”