Innocenza said:

No, Jehanne, I was quoting those statements of Bp. McKenna because of how unsettling they were As a matter of fact, I went the home-alone route for some months, as a result of doubts raised by such assertions.

Me too.  I was home alone for about six months.  This overly liberal view of invincible ignorance could have been at least partly responsible for my attack of scruples, along with a certain ignorance I suspected in traditional chapels about other matters ( not everyone seemed to know that America is ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic, and some are relatively favorable to the Jєωs in general, in a political sense, favorable to Israel ).  I got to the point where I thought that trad chapels were heavily infiltrated, which may be the case, who knows.  But you can't live your life that way, suspecting everyone as part of a plot.  You have to have proof, and I had no proof, I was just getting more and more paranoid, like some drug-addicted shut-in from an Oliver Stone film.

Look at how in my last post I am cautiously saying that no one knows just how far invincible ignorance extends -- I'm not trying to force my interpretation of it on anyone.  I'm sticking with what Pius IX said.  But you know, Bishop McKenna doesn't force his view on anyone either.  He just said he would agree with what Father Fahey said, not that he would impose it on everyone in his chapel.

I don't know what the CMRI believes, I haven't asked them, and I don't care, because they are entitled to their opinion on this matter.

Hietanen --

( 1 ) Why quote St. Thomas when you know very well he believed in baptism of desire?

( 2 ) You take the quote of St. Pius X out of context entirely.  He isn't talking about those who have never had the Gospel preached to them, he's actually talking about people that today we consider Vatican II Catholics, Catholics who have a superficial or nonexistent knowledge of their own religion.

( 3 ) Your assertion that no Doctor of the Church said that you could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is false.  St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation.  In other words, implicit faith was not a heresy at the time, but an increasingly popular concept among theologians that was still open for discussion, that no Pope forbade.  Eventually Pius IX threw his hat in the ring and spoke of invincible ignorance in his encyclicals, making this a dogma at least of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

( 4 ) Regarding the Benedict XIV quote, it's also a necessity of means to be baptized, but baptism of desire is still taught by at least FIVE Doctors of the Church, to my knowledge, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, who said it was de fide, St. Bernard, St. Augustine ( who, admittedly, was more confused on the issue, since he had less support ).  

Therefore, what is faulty is your understanding of the concept of necessity of means, not the concept of baptism of desire, or of implicit faith, since these all have ample support from the Church.

Now consider this -- if you are correct, then five doctors of the Church were all wrong on the same issue... We're not just talking saints, but DOCTORS of the Church.  Do you really think God would allow this?   Also, if you are correct, then a whole series of Popes were negligent in their duties by allowing implicit faith to be taught and discussed for centuries, infecting countless numbers with what you are pleased to believe is heresy.  This would be near-total system failure of the Church.  

Here's hoping and praying that you learn just how much more to the Catholic religion there is than the narrow and cramped Feeneyite worldview can reveal!

How respond you to the Angelic Doctor's very clear requirement of explicit faith in Christ and the mystery of the Trinity in light of Leo XIII's proclamation that Thomas' work was the definitive exposition of Catholic doctrine?

Hietanen --

( 3 ) Your assertion that no Doctor of the Church said that you could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation is false.  St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation.

No, please, we are to follow dogma, you are clearly wrong!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Hietanen --

In other words, implicit faith was not a heresy at the time, but an increasingly popular concept among theologians that was still open for discussion, that no Pope forbade.  Eventually Pius IX threw his hat in the ring and spoke of invincible ignorance in his encyclicals, making this a dogma at least of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Some articles of Faith can people be material heretic about (or ignorant about), but not on the divine mysteries or the natural law, for to be ignorant about those puts one outside of the Church and salvation, as the above St. Pope Pius X quotes showed you - but you wanted to give it another meaning. Please, if your position is correct, that he was talking about something else than the divine mysteries (the trinity and incarnation), you have to prove your cause, otherwise, it's only empty words and has no worth, and should thus be looked upon as such.
What are these minimum truths that an adult must know to be saved?  The Church has always taught, as the Athanasian Creed infallibly defined, that knowing the Trinity and the Incarnation is a necessity of means in order to be saved.  That is why missionaries risked everything to go and preach the Gospel to heathen in far off lands.  An adult who doesn’t know the Trinity and the Incarnation cannot be saved, for these mysteries constitute “the Catholic Faith” if broken down and defined in terms of its simplest mysteries.

You also assert that "St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion that one could be saved by implicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation."

I would like you to prove your cause there, many people either misinterpret quotes or don't read them properly. I don't say you have done either of them. Now, as far as I know, that quote is a fabrication or intentionally misinterpreted by some people, it's not a true quote.

I don't know the quote, so please show it to me, so I can confirm what I have heard about it.

Now, even if he did say what you say (which he did not, as far I am aware of) it would still not matter, since its a dogma of Faith that a person must explicitly know about the Trinity and Incarnation to be Saved (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8.)

Hietanen --

( 1 ) Why quote St. Thomas when you know very well he believed in baptism of desire?

I suppose I don't have to go into detail on the Immaculate Conception, which he was wrong about? That is why we do NOT follow the opinions of Sts or Theologians, however many they are, if what they say goes against infallible Catholic dogma.

Besides, once again, All the few Saints and Theologians who believed in baptism of desire and baptism of blood only applied it to people who already believed in Jesus Christ. That is a lot different from the modern notion that even Muslims, Jєωs and pagans, somehow, are saved though a baptism of desire (which they do not even desire!). If you are to object with the council of Trent, (which does not teach baptism of desire, but let's assume it does so we can refute this theory even more), they still said then, that people actually need to have an actuall desire for water baptism to be Saved.
So what is it, can people who reject Christ, and does not desire baptism, be Saved, according to you?

For those who want to go into details on the Council of Trent, go here

And when you say St Thomas believed in baptism of desire, do you mean by that, that he held the opinion that people can be saved without knowledge of Jesus Christ or the Trinity? He certainly did not believe that, and I don't think I have to prove that for you (he only applied baptism of blood for catechumens). However, if you believe that people can be saved without knowledge of the trinity and incarnation (excluding infants and mentally retarded), that would make you a heretic since you have been presented the dogma regarding the absolute necessity of actually believing in the trinity and incarnation for salvation. Besides, one cannot be a Catholic and have as belief that is incompatible with the divine faith, that would put him outside the Church also. That means people who believe that other people can be saved without belief in Jesus is a heresy against divine Faith, which all must know about to be a Christian=Jesus Christ).

Hietanen --

Now consider this -- if you are correct, then five doctors of the Church were all wrong on the same issue... We're not just talking saints, but DOCTORS of the Church.  Do you really think God would allow this?   Also, if you are correct, then a whole series of Popes were negligent in their duties by allowing implicit faith to be taught and discussed for centuries, infecting countless numbers with what you are pleased to believe is heresy.

To this, I will say: it's quiet clear that it is a define dogma of Faith that real and actual water is necessary for salvation. This is a dogma, so crystal clear defined, that only someone who are willingly blind must deny it.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra;
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Argument of silence is neither proving your cause. Just because no Pope has ever condemned the idea of baptism of blood or desire by name, does not mean that it is true, when it clearly has been condemned, refuted and destroyed by word, namely, that one cannot be Saved without real and actual water baptism (quoted just above). This in itself refutes bob/bod, even though not mentioned by name. If someone is honest, he will agree with this, but that is only if he is honest.

Hietanen, Baptism of Desire is not a myth. As others on this thread have said, if one wishes to be baptized into the Catholic faith but cannot, a BoD is completely acceptable. I agree 100% with Raoul.

It's irrelevant.  No one, including the Church, knows to what extent, if any, Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood occur.  The One and Triune God is capable of bringing sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes; likewise, He can save someone without it.  However, for us in the latter case, it would be equivalent to "proving a negative" to say that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood have ever occurred, that is, proving that someone was not Baptized, and of course, this is impossible to ever conclude.

What Saint Thomas taught is that explicit faith in the 14 Articles of Faith (the Apostle's Creed) is necessary for salvation, the bare minimum being explicit faith in the One and Triune God and in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Zenith said:

Quote

The say that even Jєωs who reject Christ can be saved by BOD.

I would disagree with that idea taught by Father Fahey.  Father Fahey is not a Doctor of the Church, he's just an American priest.

If you reject Christ openly, how can you have invincible ignorance?

However, it's hard to say that this is heresy, since the parameters of invincible ignorance have never been established.  Some think that just growing up in an environment prejudicial to Catholicism constitutes invincible ignorance, and that is possible, there is some justification for that theory in Christ asking for forgiveness for those who were killing Him.  

My understanding is that, when you reach the age of reason, you're obligated to find the truth, if possible -- and if it is possible, you don't have "invincible" ignorance, it is entirely vincible...  But others see invincible ignorance differently, and so far, their opinion is not condemned.  As Pius IX made clear, no one knows just how far invincible ignorance extends.  

Raoul when did I write this? I don't remember ever writing this and if I did it was a mistake as I don't believe any Jєω who rejects Christ can be saved through BOD.

It is an oxymoron and completely against reason as why would any individual who rejected Christ want Christ's Baptism? Why would he desire to be in a Church who's Head he rejects and hates other than the usual reason of subversion?

I am a very big fan of Fr. Denis Fahey and his wonderful writings though this passage is a little disconcerting.
 
Fr. Fahey writes, "If a Jєω who rejects Our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged."

To me this statement is contradictory as how can a Jєω be "good in the way God demands" if he "rejects Our Lord"?
To be good in the way God demands is to follow and accept Our Lord and how is that reconciled with rejecting Our Lord?

It would be great if Fr. Fahey was still alive so we could clarify exactly what he means in this passage though if you read a little further on he is very clear in his final sentence of the paragraph.

He writes, "No Jєω, in virtue of what he objectively stands for, is supernaturally good as God wants him to be."

I believe this sentence clarifies Fr. Fahey's position on the matter as he speaks hypothetically in the first part of the passage though he speaks objectively in the final sentence above.

Quote from: Hietanen

It means that baptism of desire is a myth.

So you reject both the Council of Trent and its Catechism?

The Catechism of The Council of Trent:
“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.”

Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

No I don't reject Council of Trent of The Catechism of Council of Trent. I just don't take them out of context as 99% of other people do.

Its really easy, dogma cannot contradict dogma. We already know that dogma absolutely affirms water baptism essential for salvation, so for people then to contradict it with another "dogma" is just ridiculous and insane.


Now will both the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent be dealt with thoroughly. If people are honest, they will agree with this.[/U]


SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

OBJECTION-  In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it!  So there!

ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved.  It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism.  But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved!  They believe that Jєωs, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t desire water baptism.  Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching.  Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]

That being noted, this passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.  It says that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it.  This is totally different from the idea that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

First off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.
The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…”  This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin – to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire.  This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI.  That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the council actually says here. 

Looking at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism.  There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies.  The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this.  That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.

But what does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say:  It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD[/I].”

But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.  A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false.  Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.”  Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower?  No it doesn’t.  It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.

Or suppose I said, “There cannot be a wedding without[/U] a bride or a groom.”  Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride?  Of course not.  It means that both are necessary for the wedding.  One could give hundreds of other examples.  Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT[/U] TAKE PLACE WITHOUT[/U] water or desire; in other words, both are necessary.  It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!

THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

OBJECTION- The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that one’s determination to receive baptism could avail him to grace and righteousness if it is impossible for him to receive baptism.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once, p. 179: “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.”

ANSWER- The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible.  Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI:  “Official docuмents 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.”

God does not command impossibilities. To say so would be heresy, since this thought is condemned by the Church. It is not impossible for someone to be baptized, period. If a person dies without baptism, he was not one of the elect, he was of bad will, and a sinner. No one but the bad will go into eternal condemnation. Therefore, all who die without baptism, are of bad will, and of bad Faith, including infants, who, if they had lived, would have become enemies of God.

There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible” to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra;
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema[/b].”

 God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”

 Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism of Trent demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible docuмent could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.

 Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively. But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
 “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

Well, Stevus,  a lot of people's faith has been derailed by those 2 brothers.
People accept their heresies, and eventually become home aloners.  I have a friend that unfortunately was derailed by them.
Another friend followed them also, and stayed away from mass and the sacraments for years!  On her deathbed she recanted her heresies and received the last rites and apostolic blessing! :heretic: