No sudden "twists"  I assumed the Feeneyites preferred the verse that actually mentions "water" since they believe their is not salvation apart from water.  

Do you have anything substantial to contribute apart from accusations of "twists"?  

Quote from: misericordianos

LoT,

Quote

Imagine a Eucharist Feeneyite who insisted the no one at all can be saved unless he has received the Eucharist worthily as Christ taught in John VI.  Such people do to John III what they could easily do with John VI if they got the itch to do so or if there was a Feeney or Dimond to lead the charge on the issue.  It comes down to the fact that God does not insist on the impossible and does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of.  God is not an arbitrary tyrant more concerned about the exterior than the heart.  In fact quite the reverse is true as He is most concerned about the heart and good will of a person above how they project themselves exteriorly as we can tell regarding His analogy of the white-washed tomb.

That God does not damn one to the sufferings of hell without personal sin says absolutely nothing about the conditions requisite for entrance to the Beatific vision in heaven.

As to your speculations on John VI and the Eucharist: we have nothing in the infallible Magisterium which states that there cannot be salvation or justification without reception of, or the desire for, the Eucharist, do we?

You can accuse the “Feeneyites” of private interpretation of Magisterial statements (unjustly I would say, but you could), but you cannot accuse them of private interpretation of Scripture as the foundation of their objections.

You can imagine all you want, but your imaginations would have no relevance to the case at hand.

You can also imagine that God saves Muslims, Jєωs, Buddhists and what not who - in the face of divine Providence and Predestination - because of circuмstances presumably beyond God’s control, "can’t come" to explicit faith in Christ.

Can’t they? LOL

And if not, why not? Mere chance of birth and place? Or failure of will, and therefore denial of what comes to all who seek from the heart, who will find Christ?

God disposes of His elect, whose very hairs are numbered.

Your position inevitably ends up in a denial of the truths of Providence or Predestination, as we have seen.

Man becoming God, and God watching. God the passive watcher in the stadium of man. As if the commandment was, “eat the apple of the forbidden tree, and become gods.”

Good grief.

To start, their is nothing to laugh out load about here.  Further the phrase "good grief" would seem to indicate that you are dealing with a mental retard which, even if true, does not betoken Catholic charity.

To address your points outside the above discretions:

The condition requisite for entrance to the Beatific Vision is sanctifying grace.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

Trent taught BOD unless you go with Feeney over Bellarmine, Alphonsus and Pius XII along with all the orthodox theologians who spoke to the issue.  Pray to Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III and Pope Pius IV to give you the grace to accept their de fide teaching or by some miracle admit to the world they were wrong or that Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII, etc. misinterpreted it but Feeney did not.  

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Feeneyites point again and again to the above verse as if Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, etc. never read or understood it.  If you go against them you have private interpretation.  

John 6: 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

I do not speculate about John 6.  I simply ask where is the consistency with the Feenyites?  Why don’t you cry about the above verse as you do John 3: 3?  Because Feeney didn’t?  

I present an authoritative letter approved by Pope Pius XII with infallible teaching in it.  Your beef is with the Catholic Church and not with me.  Or do you agree with all that is stated in this authoritative letter and in the de Fide teaching of Trent?

Well, you’re right, it’s more cause for tears then laughter. The “good grief” is therefore fairly accurate. The comment is a substitute for others that came to mind, which, had you known, would argue for charity.

And whence comes sanctifying grace in this our day, “after the promulgation of the gospel”? This is the question . . . but not being a mental retard, you know that, right?

Where have I rejected BOD, particularly as understood by Bellarmine, for example? While you have apparently rejected the necessity of the sacrament of baptism, which becomes unnecessary if the desire for it can be implicit.

The Feeneyites point to, for example, the councils of Florence and Trent, which cite John 3:3, "as written.” You apparently did not read what I said about the Feeneyites relying on Magisterial pronouncements as grounding their objections.

I see you did not cite any Magisterial statements about the necessity of the Eucharist or desire in order to enter the Church or for salvation or justification. You have missed my point related to the Feeneyites relying upon Magisterial statements and not Scripture, like a Protestant.

I do not agree that an implicit desire for baptism justifies or can be salvific. Does it teach that? You tell me. I don’t worry much about the Holy Office Letter, as I don’t see that it undermines my position: explicit faith in Christ and at least an explicit desire for baptism is necessary for justification/salvation. While I believe Trent indicates that such explicit faith/desire would be enough, I believe all of the elect actually receive baptism. I do not see the Letter as condemning that, either.

The circuмstances of the Letter’s publication (or rather non) also makes its “authority” questionable.

No sudden "twists"  I assumed the Feeneyites preferred the verse that actually mentions "water" since they believe their is not salvation apart from water.  

Do you have anything substantial to contribute apart from accusations of "twists"?  

Are you that bewildered? Trent quoted John 3:5, which is the verse that explicitly names water, don't you think you had better reference the same verse as Trent?

I still recommend that you repeat the words of Trent 5000 times a day until you believe them. The words you should repeat are very simple and can be read right from the Canon from Council of Trent, it says: "The sacraments are necessary unto salvation".

Here they are:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

 

Which BTW, it's been well over a year since you were challenged to start a thread and champion the necessity of the sacraments for salvation - yet here we are over a year later and you still cannot get yourself to do it. You are still not up to the challenge.

You remain stuck on salvation via No Sacrament At All (NSAA) just as bad as ever.

Misericordianos, you are about right. The necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is not only taught by all the Doctors but also by St. Pius X in these words, "A great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment fall into this everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the mysteries of the Faith which must be known and believed by all who belong to the Elect." There is an earlier Holy Office decree that describes what the mysteries of Faith necessary as a means are, " the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation." under Pope Clement XI. Of course, the same Saintly Pope also taught the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire. "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." just as earlier Popes had, "We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching." St. Alphonsus, who also taught the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, explains why this is, "He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment."

The Holy Office Letter, as Msgr. Fenton knew, does not in any way preclude this teaching of salvation by explicit faith in Christ. But it does allow that in some cases, the desire for baptism can be merely implicit, contained in supernatural charity, which requires supernatural faith. Example, Cornelius is regarded by St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Robert, St. Alphonsus and many other theologians to have received Baptism in voto, as any approved Catholic commentary on this passage will tell us,  44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circuмcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

Haydock: "(Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)"

These Catholic authorities tell us that after St. Peter had preached Christ but before he had taught of Baptism, Cornelius received the Holy Ghost just as the baptized disciples had, in other words he received the Baptism of Desire. So he had explicit faith in Christ and implicit desire for Baptism.

Modern Feeneyism (defined as the denial of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire) has caused a great deal of confusion among good Catholics. These two truths should be kept together, Baptism of Desire and the impossibility of salvation without the Catholic Faith, the primary mysteries of which pertaining to God Himself must be believed explicitly, namely that God is a Trinity and that God became Man in Jesus Christ. Whoever knows and believes God is a Trinity by divine and Catholic Faith can have supernatural charity or contrition through love of Him and be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: misericordianos

LoT,

Quote

Imagine a Eucharist Feeneyite who insisted the no one at all can be saved unless he has received the Eucharist worthily as Christ taught in John VI.  Such people do to John III what they could easily do with John VI if they got the itch to do so or if there was a Feeney or Dimond to lead the charge on the issue.  It comes down to the fact that God does not insist on the impossible and does not damn to eternal pain one for a sin or omission one is not culpable of.  God is not an arbitrary tyrant more concerned about the exterior than the heart.  In fact quite the reverse is true as He is most concerned about the heart and good will of a person above how they project themselves exteriorly as we can tell regarding His analogy of the white-washed tomb.

That God does not damn one to the sufferings of hell without personal sin says absolutely nothing about the conditions requisite for entrance to the Beatific vision in heaven.

As to your speculations on John VI and the Eucharist: we have nothing in the infallible Magisterium which states that there cannot be salvation or justification without reception of, or the desire for, the Eucharist, do we?

You can accuse the “Feeneyites” of private interpretation of Magisterial statements (unjustly I would say, but you could), but you cannot accuse them of private interpretation of Scripture as the foundation of their objections.

You can imagine all you want, but your imaginations would have no relevance to the case at hand.

You can also imagine that God saves Muslims, Jєωs, Buddhists and what not who - in the face of divine Providence and Predestination - because of circuмstances presumably beyond God’s control, "can’t come" to explicit faith in Christ.

Can’t they? LOL

And if not, why not? Mere chance of birth and place? Or failure of will, and therefore denial of what comes to all who seek from the heart, who will find Christ?

God disposes of His elect, whose very hairs are numbered.

Your position inevitably ends up in a denial of the truths of Providence or Predestination, as we have seen.

Man becoming God, and God watching. God the passive watcher in the stadium of man. As if the commandment was, “eat the apple of the forbidden tree, and become gods.”

Good grief.

To start, their is nothing to laugh out load about here.  Further the phrase "good grief" would seem to indicate that you are dealing with a mental retard which, even if true, does not betoken Catholic charity.

To address your points outside the above discretions:

The condition requisite for entrance to the Beatific Vision is sanctifying grace.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

Trent taught BOD unless you go with Feeney over Bellarmine, Alphonsus and Pius XII along with all the orthodox theologians who spoke to the issue.  Pray to Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III and Pope Pius IV to give you the grace to accept their de fide teaching or by some miracle admit to the world they were wrong or that Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII, etc. misinterpreted it but Feeney did not.  

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Feeneyites point again and again to the above verse as if Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, etc. never read or understood it.  If you go against them you have private interpretation.  

John 6: 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

I do not speculate about John 6.  I simply ask where is the consistency with the Feenyites?  Why don’t you cry about the above verse as you do John 3: 3?  Because Feeney didn’t?  

I present an authoritative letter approved by Pope Pius XII with infallible teaching in it.  Your beef is with the Catholic Church and not with me.  Or do you agree with all that is stated in this authoritative letter and in the de Fide teaching of Trent?

Well, you’re right, it’s more cause for tears then laughter. The “good grief” is therefore fairly accurate. The comment is a substitute for others that came to mind, which, had you known, would argue for charity.

And whence comes sanctifying grace in this our day, “after the promulgation of the gospel”? This is the question . . . but not being a mental retard, you know that, right?

Where have I rejected BOD, particularly as understood by Bellarmine, for example? While you have apparently rejected the necessity of the sacrament of baptism, which becomes unnecessary if the desire for it can be implicit.

The Feeneyites point to, for example, the councils of Florence and Trent, which cite John 3:3, "as written.” You apparently did not read what I said about the Feeneyites relying on Magisterial pronouncements as grounding their objections.

I see you did not cite any Magisterial statements about the necessity of the Eucharist or desire in order to enter the Church or for salvation or justification. You have missed my point related to the Feeneyites relying upon Magisterial statements and not Scripture, like a Protestant.

I do not agree that an implicit desire for baptism justifies or can be salvific. Does it teach that? You tell me. I don’t worry much about the Holy Office Letter, as I don’t see that it undermines my position: explicit faith in Christ and at least an explicit desire for baptism is necessary for justification/salvation. While I believe Trent indicates that such explicit faith/desire would be enough, I believe all of the elect actually receive baptism. I do not see the Letter as condemning that, either.

The circuмstances of the Letter’s publication (or rather non) also makes its “authority” questionable.

Regardless you teach that John 3 means water is absolutely necessary without exception, but Aquinas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus do not.  Did they miss something?  Yes or no?  I'm not immersed in your error so I don't have your quotes memorized exactly.  I just know you changed the dogma from "No Salvation Outside the Church" to "No Salvation Apart from Water".

If no one can be saved apart from water then what would a catechism do if confronted with denial of Christ or death without baptism?  What would you do?  

Feeneyism is not Catholic.

I am not disputing Haydock

Did you always believe this? You have just admitted the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, because you admit a man like Cornelius who believes in the Trinity and in Jesus can obtain the grace of justification through desire and contrition, just as all authorities teach. I already answered your question, and you would know that if you read carefully. Cornelius had explicit faith in Christ and implicit desire for baptism. Very often, we can have contrition without knowing it, e.g. when we look at a crucifix and are moved to deep love of God and sincere sorrow for all our sins, in this case the desire for penance is implicit, contained in the universal will to do all that God wills. Love of God, as the Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors explain contains the desire to do everything God wills (the whole) and so the desire to do every specific thing that He wills (e.g. baptism) and thus it suffices to obtain grace and justice. As St. Alphonsus puts it, "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment." Thus, the desire for Baptism obtains justification.

You ask, then why are heretics lost even if they believe in Jesus? It's simple, heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith, and heretics are lost if they die unrepentant and obstinate in this mortal sin, as all the Popes, Saints and Doctors teach, and as Florence infallibly declares. So a Protestant baptized as an infant who upon coming to the age of reason obstinately clings to some heresy against the Catholic Faith sins mortally, loses grace and exits the Church that he entered by Baptism. In order for a heretic to be saved, he must repent of all his sins, including any and all sins against the Catholic Faith. To have contrition, and a desire for penance (heretics are already baptized, so it is penance that applies to them), the heretic must repent of his heresy.

Your claim that something is impossible for God is a strawman. Nothing is impossible for God, but God can and does give the grace of justification through Baptism of Desire, as He did for Cornelius. Now, you speculate that everyone who receives justification through contrition and Baptism of Desire will also receive Water Baptism, just like Fr. Feeney did later in life. "There is no one about to die in the state of justification to whom God cannot provide Baptism, and indeed Baptism of water." But, there are many reasons God may not wish to give a person dying in the state of grace water baptism on his deathbed, example He may want that person to go to purgatory for a while. Also, we are informed by Saints and other credible authorities that He has done this in some instances. You cite no authority at all for your speculation, except your private opinion. I would not call this a mortal sin or grave error against the Faith, but only a slight error, if it remains on the level of a personal opinion. I'll adress what's mistaken with SBC's opinion in my next post.

Modern Feeneyism (defined as the denial of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire) has caused a great deal of confusion among good Catholics.

Hogwash.  What, as opposed to Ancient "Feeneyism"?

In any case, it's BoD ITSELF which has caused all the confusion, Nishant.  INVARIABLY it leads to religious indifferentism and EENS-denial among the uneducated (and even educated) masses.  Once you start hurling "implicit" this, and then "implicit" that, adding a couple layers of implicit, poof!, EENS vanishes into thin air as not only a meaningless formula, but as actually dogmatically defining the OPPOSITE of EENS (when "understood correctly").  When asked if there's salvation outside the Church, 99% of Catholics day can't say "NO!"; instead they immediately wax theological with a 10-paragraph explanation of what this REALLY means.  Talk about confusion.

At the very least a good pope should absolutely quarantine this pernicious doctrine of man, forbidding all discussion of it, until such a time as faith in EENS has returned to Catholics and then theologians can discuss the subject in the smoke-filled back rooms of Latin theological manuals ... where such speculative theology belongs.

Yes, BoD is a "tradition of man" in the truest sense of the term.

1) there's no evidence that this was revealed by Our Lord and taught by Him to the Apostles.  Otherwise, it would be found much more widely among the Church Fathers than in an idle speculation of a young theologically-immature St. Augustine (who then later retracted it).  BoD was explicitly rejected by no fewer than 7 or 8 Church Fathers and held (by his own admission speculatively) and then later retracted by one.  Consequently, ZERO evidence that BoD was revealed by Our Lord.

2) no one has ever demonstrated that BoD flows logically and necessarily from other revealed truth so that it can be considered "implicitly" revealed.

Those are the only two ways that something can be discerned as revealed, short of a Modernist conception of growing consciousness of revelation over time (Rahner's growing "hope of salvation"), where things can be added or subtracted from the Deposit down the road.

Being widely accepted does NOT make it Church teaching. I grant that the Church has long tolerated and accepted the teaching, but the Church has never defined it.  Prima Facie evidence for lack of definition comes from the fact that you get a different definition of BoD for pretty much every BoD advocate you talk to (in terms of its scope and what it can and cannot supply for).  No one has ever refuted my proof for the fact that Trent did not teach BoD.

Here's the history.

1) St. Augustine speculation -- later retracted.
2) Nothing else heard for about the next 800 years on the subject.
3) Peter Lombard studied under both Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor.  Abelard rejected BoD while Hugh accepted it.  So Peter wrote to St. Bernard for his advice.  St. Bernard simply said, "I'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right against him." (sounds authoritative, eh?)  Peter Lombard then accepted it, and The Sentences, which created the foundation for the revival of scholasticism, popularized the opinion.
4) St. Thomas then picked it up.  Then it spread like wildfire after that, due to the reverence people had for St. Thomas.

That's it.  Neither St. Thomas nor anyone else gave theological proof for the speculation.

Innocent II / III endorsed the idea for those who explicit intention to be Catholic in a couple of non-infallible letters (of disputed authorship even).

Doctors of the Church picked it up.  St. Robert Bellarmine felt that to say Catechumens couldn't be saved via BoD would "seem too harsh" (again, solid theological proof?); he admitted that BoD was disputed among the Church Fathers.

By the 1600s the Jesuits started tinkering with the idea that those without explicit faith in Jesus and the Holy Trinity could be saved, implying a second layer of "implicit" to the equation, thus rendering any worshipper of The Great Thumb able to be saved ... completely gutting EENS over time.

Now that brings us to Vatican II.

So it's like this.

1. Denial of Baptism of Desire - mortal sin against the Faith
2. Original sin is not remitted in justification - mortal sin against Faith
3. A justified person is still outside the Church - heresy
4. A person who dies in sanctifying grace will not enter heaven - heresy
5. Every person who receives Baptism of Desire may also hopefully receive Baptism of Water - lesser error.

Both #2 and #4 have been defended by Feeneyite publications, but they are very gravely erroneous.

Tell me which of the above you believe and I'll prove you're mistaken from other Catholic authorities.

You seem to essentially hold to St. Benedict's Centre's position, which is not the position of Fr. Wathen, whom you have also cited in the past, and whose opinion I thought you held. It is incorrect, but I wouldn't necessarily call it sinful. They claim, "Then, in the last sentence, he [St. Ambrose] says that “if they [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.” I cannot understand what the holy doctor is affirming or denying in these sentences." The reason they can't understand him is he is saying this soul was washed through his desire, just like martyrs are washed in their blood.

Later they say, "Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith." This is quite correct, and here they explicitly reject #4 above as heretical.

But then they claim, "The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized." First, even if the Church tolerates this, it doesn't follow that it isn't erroneous, at most it can be argued it is not heretical or gravely sinful. Secondly, even a single counterexample suffices to disprove a universal negative, and Valentian is one example and there are others. SBC says there are no earlier examples, but that is incorrect, example, St. Eusebius reports, "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire." So, there are other mistakes in the SBC position, which you seem to hold, but it avoids the grave errors #1-#4 above and postulates #5, a lesser error.

Thank you Nishant for your level-headed posts based upon the study of authentic Catholic teaching on the subject.  People who claim to be Catholic will respond and claim you to be incorrect acting as if they are 100% sure they are correct but I am not sure what they will base their assertions upon and I am not sure they are sure what they base their assertions on other than Feeney and their post Vatican "2" heroes Wathen and the Dimonds.