CAFETERIA CATHOLIC EFRAIN CORTES DEFENDING HIS MODERNIST RELIGION
The latest article by Efrain Cortes “AS LIMBO GOES, THERE GO THE VACANCY THEORISTS (SEDEVACANTISTS)” was the result of an email exchange that I had with him during September and October of 2009. SEE BELOW FOR LINK TO HIS ARTICLE
The exchange involved the de fide teaching that unbaptized infants go to eternal hell. With this dogma, I demonstrated how John Paul II and Benedict XVI could not be considered Catholics for rejecting this teaching.
My argument is simple.
The Councils of Florence and Lyons II both taught as a matter of faith that those who die in actual mortal sin or original sin only immediately go to hell but suffer different kinds of punishments.
Earlier, the Church at the Council of Carthage under Pope St. Zosimus solemnly stated: “If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ it might be understood that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema.
With these three statements, we have repeated Catholic teaching that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven.
This is a Catholic dogma!
John Paul II and Benedict XVI both said that Catholics may hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.
This means that they either reject the de fide teachings outright or they are calling them into question by implication.
However one looks at it, they are saying that you may hope against a dogma.
One cannot hope against this dogma anymore than you can hope the Calvinists are right about justification or the pope is not infallible.
Over the years, saints and popes have disagreed whether unbaptized infants actually suffer any fire or some other terrible torment.
Limbo was a word used to describe the possible place in eternal hell for these children. Limbo or on the border of the fires of hell was positively accepted as an answer by Pope Pius VI against the Jansenists who misunderstood Carthage and said they absolutely suffer fire. One side could not condemn another side for either viewpoint.
Now, Cortes wrote to me boastfully rejecting all these Councils on the point that unbaptized infants go to hell because he thinks they all contradict one another as he attempts to demonstrate in his article.
Cortes begins his article with the run of the mill line that sedevacantists reject Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail. I answer this elsewhere on my webpage.
After the preliminary paragraphs, Cortes immediately cuts to the chase.
He admits that rejecting a dogma would amount to heresy. Therefore, he attempts to show that these teachings are not dogmatic.
However, he misrepresents the argument because limbo is not the issue at all. I made this clear to him in our email exchange.
It is about hell.
If all Benedict XVI did was to say that limbo was a “theological hypothesis” you would not hear any argument from sedevacantists.
But John Paul II and Benedict XVI went much farther by saying that we can hope that those unbaptized infants go to heaven which means they hope the heretic Pelagius was right and the entire history of the Church especially those 3 councils were wrong.
The entire argument of Cortes hinges on trying to prove that Carthage, Florence, Lyons II are not de fide on this point.
How does he try to do that?
He thinks by showing that contradictions in the Councils and papal teachings, then by that fact alone the doctrine that those who die in original sin only would not be a de fide teaching.
To take Efrain’s own words,
{“Thus, a truth revealed by God (a dogma) must, by definition, be unobstructed by contradiction. For a dogma entangled in contradiction makes but a common perjurer out of the Living God.”}
That being said, let’s look at the argument Cortes proposes.
The Second Council of Lyon, in the year 1274 A.D., stated:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [different] punishments.
The Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. also stated:
“We define also that…the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
In 418 A.D., the Council of Carthage stated:
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”
Cortes states that this statement by Carthage was contradicted by Florence and Lyons because of the clause, “or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live…”
Why?
Cortes says,
{“For if, there is no middle place or some place anywhere, as declared by Carthage, then where in hell can those who die with the stain of original sin alone, suffer a differing sentence than those who die in mortal sin?”}
Cortes continues that the African Fathers understood Carthage to mean that un-baptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned and therefore contradicts Florence and Lyons that speak of sufferings of different kinds.
The problem with this argument is simple.
What Cortes doesn’t want to see is that the whole context of Carthage was about the mansions in the Father’s house or places in heaven. That some place anywhere is not about hell but heaven. It actually plainly states, “that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere.”
This statement could rightfully be translated: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions’…that it might be understood that there will be some middle place or some place anywhere in the kingdom of heaven where the blessed infants…”
The African Fathers simply understood Carthage correctly that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven.
The Catholic Encyclopedia rightly points this out with:
Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.
However, the very next line in the Encyclopedia erroneously states:
These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.
Cortes went with this statement and based his argument on it. The Encyclopedia is simply in error on this point since Florence and Lyons defined that unbaptized infants go to hell, which confirms Carthage that they don’t go to heaven.
Perhaps, this was one of the reasons Pope St. Pius X, when presented with the Catholic Encyclopedia, through it to the ground and called it modernist.
In the end, it doesn’t matter.
There are no and were never any contradictions between the councils and popes as Cortes says about this doctrine.
He asks,
{“is the Lord Our God indeed but a common perjurer? We think not!”}
Cortes must think God is indeed a perjurer since he denies the de fide teachings of Carthage, Florence, and Lyons while saying they contradict one another.
Lastly, Cortes has one more trick up his sleeve.
He says about those teachings of the Councils,
{“if these declarations are in fact defined dogma, binding upon all Catholics, then this would mean that every Catholic – layman, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and Pope must adhere to the teaching of these ecumenical councils without deviation.”}
{“For a truth revealed by the immortal God cannot be contradicted by mortal man.”}
And then waves his wand with…
{“Why then, do we find Pope Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore, in the year 1863, stating the following in regard to eternal punishments:
“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”}
{“Is an unbaptized infant guilty of deliberate sin?”}
{“Here, Pius IX, long before John XXIII or the Second Vatican Council, contradicts the teaching of Lyon II and Florence.”}
{“For Lyon II and Florence teach “infallibly” (according to Vacancy Theorists) that those who die “in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell…to undergo punishments of different kinds.”}
{“Yet, in spite of this “infallible” teaching, by two ecumenical councils, Pius IX asserts that those who die in original sin alone do not suffer eternal punishments at all. For one must be guilty of deliberate sin in order to undergo such punishments.”}
{“Thus, un-baptized infants by virtue of their inability to sin deliberately, according to Pius IX, could indeed attain the kingdom of heaven.”}
And pulls the rabbit out of his hat with…
{“Therefore, according to Vacancy Theorist ideology, Pius IX must also be a heretic.”}
With every illusion, there is something you don’t see. What Efrain hides from you is the context of Pope Pius IX.
I’ll provide it here:
(7)…There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, POPE PIUS IX AUGUST 10, 1863
As you can see, Pope Pius was referring to those other than unbaptized infants since infants cannot observe the natural law and its precepts and ready to obey God while living honest lives.
All infants can do is eat, sleep, dream, cry, etc.
Therefore, Pope Pius IX was not contradicting anything. All he was doing was illustrating the doctrine of Baptism of Desire which only those of reason can have. The Councils of Florence and Trent, and the Trent’s catechism all state that infants cannot have eternal life without the sacrament of Baptism.
Oh yea, Cortes didn’t quote that part of Florence: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God.”
But for the sake of the argument, let’s say that Pope Pius IX was referring to those infants. Did he say they go to heaven? No, he didn’t but rather said “to suffer eternal punishments.” This still does not contradict the three councils. The limbo in hell is explained by St. Thomas Aquinas as not suffering eternal punishments in the sense that they don’t suffer torments.
No matter how you interpret it, Pope Pius IX remains in line with historic Catholic teachings.
The rest of Cortes’s article was referring to the controversies over the centuries of what kind of punishments these children have while thinking it has to do with what he thinks are contradictions between the councils.
The Catholic Church has never defined it. Pope Pius VI did condemn one side for saying that it is the fires of hell or some other torment is de fide.
What is clear though and according to every saint, pope and theologian, is that it is a de fide or dogmatic teaching the unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven. What they suffer is not the issue.
John Paul II and Benedict reject the dogma.
During our email exchange, I asked Efrain Cortes, give me de fide from another Council and tell me how it is de fide but Carthage, Florence, and Lyons are not.
He refused to answer the question.
If you follow the logic of Cortes, you can reject the teaching of baptism of desire, abortion, artificial contraception and many more since you won’t find any de fide teachings on them (at least not by his standards.)
Again, he boastfully said that he rejects Carthage, Florence, and Lyons because they are not de fide.
How do we know for sure Cortes is wrong and they are in fact dogmatic on this point?
Vatican I made it perfectly clear.
[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)
Did the popes at the councils intend this to be held universally? Yes.
Did the popes at the councils use either universal ordinary or extraordinary teaching power? Yes.
Those three councils were teaching an object of faith that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven.
This is confirmed in the great work of Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma with the highest form of approval with both the Nihil Obstat by Censor Deputatus and the Imprimatur by the Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis on the 7 October, 1954.
Even if they were not infallible (although they are) can you reject them as a Catholic?
Efrain says, of course you can, and he does. The very pope that he uses to defend his modernist religion is the very pope who condemns him here.
Pope Pius IX stated: “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)
The position I’ve given is harmonious. All the teachings work together without any contradictions. Cortes’s position does not work at all and he has to contradict Pope Pius IX in the process.
The reason he rejects the three councils on hell is simple.
To be united to Modernist Masonic Rome, you have to reject historic Catholic teachings. I told him that in my email. I also told him that you won’t find me rejecting a single universal teaching from the historic Catholic Faith.
The Vatican 2 religion was founded in the 1960’s with new doctrines and worship services. I have given over 10 dogmas and practices clearly rejected by the Vatican 2 religion elsewhere on my website.
He quoted a Bible passage to help his position.
“People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not [hinder] them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Luke 18:15-16)
Notice that this passage does not support his position. Jesus is implying that children can be hindered by not letting them come to Him. If infants are not baptized they are hindered and neglectful parents can do so. Christ says don’t. He didn’t say that they couldn’t.
This poor attempt of Efrain Cortes to defend the heretic/apostates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI only proves sedevacantism while making Cortes a formal heretic by his own words.
I warned him over and over.
He wanted to go to press to prove himself right, but in the end, only proved sedevacantism was correct.
I was trying to use discretion while trying to convert him by way of sound logic and reasoning.
Some people are just too prideful to admit when they are wrong.
EFRAIN ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE MY ARTICLE BELOW, BUT AS YOU WILL SEE, IT IS FUTILE. I GIVE THE REPLY TO EVERYTHING HE WROTE TO ME IN THE COMMENT SECTION AS WELL THAT HE Submitted on 2009/10/22 at 12:54am.
SINCE MANY PEOPLE MAY MISS THE COMMENT SECTION, I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST PLACE THIS ONE AFTER THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. SINCE EFRAIN PUT THIS IN PUBLIC IN MY COMMENT SECTION, I WILL RESPOND IN BOTH PLACES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HIS ILLOGICAL AND FALSE ARGUMENTS.
EFRAIN, Steven, Steven , Steven. You sure have become childish – and confused beyond that.
REPLY: SORRY, BUT YOU ARE THE ONE CONFUSED AND CHILDISH SINCE YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU. I WARNED YOU, AND NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED IN PUBLIC!
EFRAIN: First off, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a highly credible source for hundreds of thousands of Catholics. Therefore, it is amaturish on your part to attempt to discredit such a source with absolutely no source of your own when claiming Pius X threw it on the floor, calling it “modernist.”
The fact is, this highly credible source, for hundreds of thousands of Catholics, specifically states that Carthage is NOT binding on the Universal Church.
Your response against this highly credible source is simply that the Encyclopedia is:
“Simply in error.”
REPLY: YOU SPEAK AS IF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DE FIDE AND YET YOU COULD NEVER GIVE THAT DE FIDE TEACHING FROM A COUNCIL AND TELL ME HOW IT IS DE FIDE AS OPPOSED TO CARTHAGE, FLORENCE, AND LYONS.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR IS IT EVEN A CHURCH DOCUMENT.
IT IS IN ERROR SINCE FLORENCE AND LYONS DEFINED THAT INFANTS GO TO HELL. YOU NEVER ADDRESS THOSE COUNCILS OR THE OTHER EVEN HIGHER AND CREDIBLE SOURCE OF DR OTT’S FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA THAT PLAINLY STATES THAT FLORENCE AND LYONS IS DE FIDE ON THIS POINT.
EFRAIN: The argument you present throughout your article is weak precisely for this reason. Because your article is filled with your own claims and interpretations and no credible sources, whatsoever, to substatiate any of them.
REPLY: BOY, ARE YOU FUNNY. YOUR WHOLE ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH YOUR OWN CLAIMS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND YOU DON’T THINK THAT OTT IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE? THE FACT IS YOU ALONG WITH YOUR ANTIPOPES HAVE TO OUTRIGHT REJECT 3 COUNCILS.
EFRAIN: True you cite Vatican I. But then you butcher it with your own interpretation.
REPLY: WHAT INTERPRETATION? I JUST GAVE YOU WHAT IT STATES AND YOU REJECT IT.
EFRAIN: True you cite Carthage. But then you butcher it with your own interpretation.
REPLY: BUTCHER IT? YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS BUTCHERED IT. EVEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AGREES THAT CARTHAGE WAS REFERRING TO HEAVEN NOT HELL.
EFRAIN: true you cite Pius IX. But then you REALLY butcher it with your own interpretation.
In fact let’s look at the entire section from Pius IX’s document. Pius states:
“Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments”
In the first paragraph Pius is clearly speaking about those who sin deliberately when he says there are:
“…some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity.”
If you will notiice, Pius says nothing of “baptism of desire.”
REPLY: THAT’S RIGHT SINCE BAPTISM OF DESIRE DOES NOT INVOLVE WITH THOSE WHO ARE SIMPLY LIVING IN ERROR BUT OF THOSE WHOM HE DESCRIBES IN THE NEXT LINE…
EFRAIN CONTINUES: In fact, since Pius specifically refers to these people as Catholics, we must believe these people are actually baptized. For this is how an irreligious person is initiated into the Catholic faith – through baptism. Thereby, earning the name Catholic.
REPLY: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. PIUS IS REFERRING TO CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS CAN ATTAIN SALVATION SINCE THOSE ARE THE ONES HE SAYS ARE…ALIENATED FROM THE TRUE FAITH.
YOU SIMPLY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. NOT TO MENTION, YOU ARE THE ONE BUTCHERING UP PIUS HERE WITH YOUR OWN RIDICULOUS INTERPRETATIONS.
EFRAIN CONTINUES: In the second paragraph, Pius clearly speaks of those who do not sin deliberately when he states there are:
“…those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion.”
Again, Pius makes no mention of “baptism of desire.”
This is simply wishful thinking on Steven’s part.
REPLY: NOT AT ALL, SINCE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS THAT TEACHING OF THOSE TRYING AND THIS IS THE SOURCE CATHOLICS GO TO EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE. YOU’RE SIMPLY MISSING THE POINT.
EFRAIN CONTINUES: What Pius is clearly doing is, distinguishing between those who sin deliberately and those who do not.
Hence, my question is still valid.
Can infants sin deliberately?
REPLY: WRONG AGAIN. YOUR QUESTION IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONTEXT. I’VE ALREADY POINTED THIS OUT IN MY ARTICLE. GO BACK AND READ IT. THOSE WHO SIN DELIBERATELY AND THOSE WHO DON’T ARE THOSE WHO TRYING TO LIVE HONEST LIVES OBSERVING THE NATURAL LAW.
EFRAIN CONTINUES: For Pius then states emphatically:
“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments”
Where in this section does Pius refer to “baptism of desire?” In fact where in the entire document does he do so?
the answer is:
NOWHERE!
REPLY: YOU MISS THE POINT. BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS WHAT HE IS DESCRIBING WHICH IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ATTAINED REASON. WHERE DOES PIUS IX EVEN COME CLOSE IN REFERRING TO INFANTS?
NOWHERE!
EFRAIN CONTINUES: The fact is, Pius does contradict Lyon II and Florence.
REPLY: NOT AT ALL. FLORENCE AND LYONS WAS NOT ADDRESSING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE SUCH AS DESIRE. I QUOTE OVER 20 POPES IN MY BOOK ON BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT SAY THE SAME THING AS FLORENCE AND LYONS AND THEY ALSO SPEAK ABOUT EXCEPTIONS. EVEN FLORENCE ITSELF DOES THAT. I QUOTED THAT PART IN THE ARTICLE.
REMEMBER FLORENCE… “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God.”
THIS IMPLIES THAT ADULTS CAN HAVE ANOTHER REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THEM IN ORIGINAL SIN THAT CAN’T RECEIVE BAPTISM. IT IS DESIRE. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION FOUND RIGHT IN THE COUNCIL ITSELF. INFANTS DON’T QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION.
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT SAYS THE SAME THING AS FLORENCE AND LYONS BUT THEN GIVES THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE BY MENTIONING THOSE WHO DESIRE.
THIS IS SO SIMPLE EFRAIN, AND YET YOU CAN’T GET IT!
EFRAIN CONTINUES: For these councils state “infallibly” according to our desperate friend, Steve, that “those who die in original sin descend into hell to undergo…punishments”
REPLY: IT IS INFALLIBLE! YOU COULDN’T EVEN GIVE AN INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT FROM ANOTHER COUNCIL AND TELL ME WHAT MAKES IT INFALLIBLE. YOU, EFRAIN ARE DESPERATE IN DEFENDING YOUR DEVIL POPES.
EFRAIN CONTINUES: But Pius says they don’t. for in order to suffer eternal punishments one must be “guilty of deliberate sin”
And so my statement still stands:
Either Lyon II and Florence are not DE FIDE or Pius IX is a heretic as Steven claims Pope John Paul II and Benedict are for contradicting these two councils.
REPLY: I’VE ALREADY GIVEN THE REPLY ABOVE ABOUT EXCEPTIONS. ANTIPOPES JPII AND BENEDICT ARE THE ONES CLEARLY CONTRADICTING THE COUNCILS, NOT POPE PIUS IX. AGAIN, I EVEN GIVE AN ANSWER IN THE ARTICLE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. IT’S CLEAR AND PRECISE!
EFRAIN: Lastly, Steven never makes mention of the fact that he contradicts his fellow Sedevacantists whom I cite.
REPLY: I DID TOO! POPE PIUS VI CONDEMNS THEIR VIEW WHICH IS THAT IT IS DE FIDE THAT INFANTS SUFFER FIRE. YOU MAY HOLD THAT INFANTS SUFFER FIRE BUT YOU CAN’T SAY IT IS DE FIDE. THOSE SEDEVACANTISTS ARE DEAD WRONG!
EFRAIN: These Sedevacantists happen to agree with me, to a certain extent. Because they admit there are many contradictions in the limbo “dogma.”
REPLY: THE ONLY CONTRADICTIONS ARE ABOUT SUFFERING WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED. I ANSWER THIS IN THE ARTICLE. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE MAKINGS SILLY COMMENTS LIKE THIS.
EFRAIN: While they still believe Carthage, Lyon, and Florence are dogmatic, they admit that everyone from Popes on down contradict each other on the very point I make in my article.
And so my entire argument still stands:
For a dogma (a truth revealed by God) cannot entangle itself in contradiction.
REPLY: I’VE PROVEN THAT THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS. THEY ONLY EXIST IN YOUR MIND EFRAIN.
EFRAIN: Yet a more interesting question arises in all of this:
Which Sedevacantist sect is right?
Nice try Steven – POOR, POOR CONFUSED STEVEN.
REPLY: THE CATHOLIC SEDEVACANTISTS LIKE ME ARE RIGHT! I’VE PROVEN IT.
BUT MY COMMENTS STILL STAND AS WELL…
EFRAIN AUTOMATICALLY LOSES ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ARGUMENTS AND DEBATES ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT CATHOLIC SINCE HE CAN’T TELL WHAT IS AN INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE AND WHY AS HE ALSO REJECTS NON-DOGMATIC TEACHINGS WHICH POPE PIUS IX CONDEMNS.
IT’S OVER FOR EFRAIN AND HIS DEVIL POPES!
ADDENDUM:
“FR” BRIAN HARRISON BROUGHT UP TO A FRIEND THAT FLORENCE AND LYONS SAID, “THOSE IN ORIGINAL SIN ONLY” AND NOT “UNBAPTIZED INFANTS” THEREFORE ROME HAS NOT NECESSARILY GONE AGAINST THE TWO COUNCILS.
Let’s think about this…
Who are those who die in original sin only?
Catechumans sincerely wanting baptism go to heaven by desire.
Catechumans not sincere would not be in original sin only since it would be a mortal sin not to sincerely wanting to do Christ’s will.
Pius IX speaks of those who are trying to live honest lives obeying the natural law, and they go to heaven by implicit desire.
Those not living honest lives would be in mortal sin.
Who’s left?
Infants and mentally challenged which I’ll put together.
Both of these can go to heaven by Baptism of Blood.
Sure, there might be other exceptions but they would still be exceptions.
Who’s left?
Infants and mentally challenged with no exceptions such a Baptism of Blood.
Therefore, the only ones Florence and Lyons could be speaking about would be this last group.
Again, Florence speaks of no other remedy for infants but the sacrament (presuming no other exception like BOB).
Unless Rome is excluding the mental cases, Rome says we can hope they both go to heaven, which would mean that…we may hope that all those who die in original sin only go to heaven?
What good is the dogma if there is nobody who goes to hell in original sin only?
Rome would be making the exceptions go across the board, so-to-speak, which would make the dogma meaningless, not to mention the clause at Florence, “no other remedy.”
Either Rome is saying that you may hope against a dogma, or that a dogma is meaningless.
Which is it?
click here to see the article by Efrain Cortes
Read Full Post »
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 