Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: CM on July 17, 2009, 03:45:59 AM
-
The theory that a person who is unbaptized can be saved, commonly known as baptism of blood, is a heresy in opposition to the following dogmatic decree of Pope Eugene IV, in the Council of Florence: "...nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
So an unbaptized person, who is outside the Church, cannot shed their blood for the name of Christ and attain salvation.
Common objection:
St. Mark 10:38: "And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" Surely this referred to martyrdom as a kind of baptism?
Well yes it did, didn't it? And rightly so. It is a dogmatic truth of the Catholic Faith that baptism is the only sacrament that provides complete and total remission for all sins and forgives all punishment due to sins. And Catholics hold it as true that martyrdom does the same exact thing.
Does this mean that a person who is unbaptized can attain salvation by martyrdom, as the Baptism of blood heretics like to assert? Of course not. Why would they create an unprecedented scenario that rivals the account of the Gospel? If they say that Jesus called his Passion a baptism, and that for this reason unbaptized people who undergo a 'passion' in His name can attain salvation, they ignore a very important part of the Gospel. Jesus was already baptized when He underwent His sufferings and death.
St. Mark 1:9: "And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan."
Baptism of blood heretics may say they believe in the necessity of water baptism, but then they turn around and say that God is not bound by His own sacraments, and can save whomever He wills. Again they ignore an important part of the Gospel.
St. Matthew 3:13-15: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him."
Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism, the sacrament of Faith, as the sole means by which we may enter into His Church and be adopted as the sons and daughters of God. It is true that by the power of His divinity, he could save anyone whom He wills, even the non-baptized, but this would be directly opposed to justice, since He has oathed Himself to the sacrament.
St. John 3:5: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
The God-man, Jesus Christ, says quite clearly "...it becometh us to fulfill all justice" and since He is unchanging, He is not about to alter the way in which He brings souls to salvation.
Furthermore, martyrdom is not a sacrament, and we know from the profession of faith of Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council that the reception of sacraments is necessary for salvation.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 2, Profession of Faith: "I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. They are: 1. baptism, 2. confirmation, 3. the Eucharist, 4. penance, 5. last anointing, 6. order and 7. matrimony; and they confer grace. Of these baptism, confirmation and order may not be repeated without sacrilege."
So it clearly follows that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation, that one sacrament being baptism in water. Without this sacrament, a person is not a member of the Church, and cannot attain salvation, even if they shed their blood for the name of Christ.
Catholic martyrs are those who have been baptized, and have died for the true Faith of the true God, while holding and professing that same Faith. The only sense in which this is similar to baptism, is that by their death, it is believed that they are forgiven for all sins they have committed since their baptism as well as for the temporal punishment due to those sins, and that they fly straight to heaven to meet Him for whom they have died.
-
What about those who are prevented from getting baptized, by force?
We had many of them here in past decades, many of them were killed for their faith, while they really wanted to be baptized. They couldn't receive this sacrament because of i#s#lami#cs laws of this land.
-
And the holy innocents whose feast is celebrated?
-
And the holy innocents whose feast is celebrated?
There's no use arguing with him.
-
-
The Holy Infants descended to the Limbo of the Fathers most likely, along with all the other Old Testament prophets and saints. They ascended into Heaven when Christ went there to free them. and unity of the Catholic Church[/b].
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm
Stating that a martyred catechumen is not saved is really temerarious and can only be made a theological battle-cry by someone infected with a severe case of rigorism.
Consider the consequences of being wrong about this Feeneyite position. If one is wrong about it, one is not only holding a heretical opinion, but they are causing grave doubts in the minds of many as to the justice of God. They are saying people are outside the Church when it is they themselves who are putting themselves outside the Church.
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
-
I am not saying that. I am saying however, that it is a moral certainty that those who do not abide within the Church cannot be saved - in other words, all those not inside the Church will be condemned to Hell. From what I can tell, catechumens are not in the Church -- I base this on the fact that the Holy Mass is divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. If catechumens were inside the Church, they would be able to stay for the Mass of the Faithful, but instead, they are dismissed after the sermon (if there is one). In other words, catechumens are not inside the Church, but they are knocking on Her door.
I'm not making any battle cries. I'm rather timid and don't like to say harsh things like "Catechumens go to Hell" unless I need to.
-
I am not saying that. I am saying however, that it is a moral certainty that those who do not abide within the Church cannot be saved - in other words, all those not inside the Church will be condemned to Hell. From what I can tell, catechumens are not in the Church -- I base this on the fact that the Holy Mass is divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful.
Who said this designation proves that a catechumenate martyred for the Faith does not have a baptism of blood and is saved? You are interpreting the Council docuмent erroneously.
I'm not making any battle cries. I'm rather timid and don't like to say harsh things like "Catechumens go to Hell" unless I need to.
Well, you certainly don't need to. Certainly you shouldn't be giving aid and comfort to the Feeneyites.
-
Who said this designation proves that a catechumenate martyred for the Faith does not have a baptism of blood and is saved? You are interpreting the Council docuмent erroneously.
Because if a catechumen is not among the Faithful then he is not in the Church right? How can there be a baptism of blood? Why did Our Lord not say that then? and not that we need baptism of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter Heaven?
Well, you certainly don't need to. Certainly you shouldn't be giving aid and comfort to the Feeneyites.
I honestly have no clue who Fr. Feeney is, or what constitutes a "feenyite" (I've been exposed to Traditional Catholicism for only a few months). I just take "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" literally.
-
Because if a catechumen is not among the Faithful then he is not in the Church right?
He is if he's martyred.
How can there be a baptism of blood?
God can save such a person.
Why did Our Lord not say that then? and not that we need baptism of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter Heaven?
If someone refuses baptism they can't be saved. But you cannot say that someone with the intention to be baptized cannot be saved.
I honestly have no clue who Fr. Feeney is, or what constitutes a "feenyite" (I've been exposed to Traditional Catholicism for only a few months). I just take "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" literally.
You don't know who Fr. Feeney is? He was condemned by the Holy Office.
I recommend you read that link I posted above.
-
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
-
What about those who are prevented from getting baptized, by force?
We had many of them here in past decades, many of them were killed for their faith, while they really wanted to be baptized. They couldn't receive this sacrament because of i#s#lami#cs laws of this land.
What do you think? Do you think God wants those souls to suffer in Hell with child molesters and rapists and devil worshippers?
Of course not. Remember at Our Lord's Crucifixion, when He told The Good Theif, "you will be with me in Paradise"
Where was the water?
What about the Holy Innocents?
Please don't listen to these posters making stuff up bout the Faith as they go along.
-
Of course not. Remember at Our Lord's Crucifixion, when He told The Good Theif, "you will be with me in Paradise"
First of all, God can do what ever He wills, including working around His own laws. But He doesn't because God is Just as well. Jesus didn't need to be baptised, but He did anyways.
Second, I've already answered the question about the Holy Innocents. Technically, the Church did not begin until after the Resurrection, so the Good Thief went to the Limbo of the Fathers along with Christ and ascended into Heaven along with all the other Old Testament saints.
You don't know who Fr. Feeney is? He was condemned by the Holy Office.
I have a vague idea, but I'm not aware of the details of all the controversy surrounding him. I just don't see any debate. There's absolutely no salvation outside the Church -- let's stop arguing so that we can bring more people into the Church.
I recommend you read that link I posted above.
I will....although I will be wary, considering it is a link to a FSSPX site.
-
I will....although I will be wary, considering it is a link to a FSSPX site.
You should always be wary. Particularly of the Dimond brothers.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo," Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra (reminder- this means infallible): "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, 'unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,' as the Truth says, 'enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."
Nobody is found in the Catholic Church, who is not baptized. This is a dogma, to deny which is heresy. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and as the very first quote in the original post relates, even those outside the Church who shed their blood for the name of Christ cannot be saved.
Holy Innocents and Good Thief:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ's Resurrection, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
-
And the assertion that the heretical schismatic Feeney was condemned under the 'Holy Office' under Antipope Pius XII doesn't matter at all.
Feeney was wrong in teaching that justification could take place in the soul of a person who was unbaptized, and he adhered to the false Church under the line of 20th century antipopes, which began with Benedict XV.
-
"Ask a man, 'Are you a Christian?' He answers, 'No', if he is a pagan or a Jew. But if he says 'Yes', ask him again, 'Are you a catechumen or one of the faithful?'" (St. Augustine, Tractate 44 on the Gospel of John, no. 2).
Even if they are not of the faithful, they are CHRISTians
-
So if a person dies with supernatural faith in Christ and charity, you CM are going to condemn him to hell because he/she was unable to be baptized before death? You've gone so far in Feeneyism that you even condemn Feeney as a heretic. :pop:
-
Why does the church delay their baptism if the can go to hell if they die? isn't she endangering their salvation.
So a cathechumen should deny Jesus if his life is in danger. since whether he denies him or not he will go to hell!
much better to apostesise and live since he can have an apportunity to get baptized and be saved!
So we are encoureging the greatest sin.
-
So if a person dies with supernatural faith in Christ and charity, you CM are going to condemn him to hell because he/she was unable to be baptized before death? You've gone so far in Feeneyism that you even condemn Feeney as a heretic. :pop:
Supernatural faith, you say. How exactly does one get that faith if they are outside of God's Church? There is no supernatural faith outside of God's Church. You have to be a member of the Church to be saved, and you have to be baptized to become a member of the Church. Period. The dogmas tell the truth.
Why does the church delay their baptism if the can go to hell if they die? isn't she endangering their salvation.
No. If the Church baptizes someone who is not ready to live a Christian life, they are baptizing them unto greater condemnation. The judgment for fallen away Christians is far greater than that for pagans, etc.
2 St. Peter 2:21: "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them."
Furthermore, the Church needs to be sure that the catechumen believes rightly and does not hold to any errors or heresies before baptism, for the same reason.
So a cathechumen should deny Jesus if his life is in danger. since whether he denies him or not he will go to hell!
much better to apostesise and live since he can have an apportunity to get baptized and be saved!
So we are encoureging the greatest sin.
You cannot apostatize if you are not yet Christian. If someone is not baptized, then they are not in the Church. If someone persecutes you and says "Renounce your Faith or die!"
Not only would there be no sin in saying "I'm not a Christian" it would not even be a lie. A person is only Christian when they are made members of Christ's body. However if the same person said "I don not believe in Jesus Christ" then they are sinning and lying, because they have NATURAL belief in God, enlightened not by supernatural grace, but by natural reason.
Besides, would God allow one of His elect to slip through His fingers? That's what this all boils down to. God gets baptism to those whom He wishes to save.
Is anyone denying His ability to do this? Because you certainly are denying His words. Almost everybody is denying His Words, and saying that one is free to do so, just because a some people who are recognized as Holy have also done so. They even say that one decree from Trent means something entirely contrary to another, which is contrary to the following decree form Vatican:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4: "5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
7. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false"
Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are heresy, contrary to dogma, lies, untrue, soul damning poison and totally false.
Please, please, please spit them out.
-
So if a person dies with supernatural faith in Christ and charity, you CM are going to condemn him to hell because he/she was unable to be baptized before death? You've gone so far in Feeneyism that you even condemn Feeney as a heretic. :pop:
Supernatural faith, you say. How exactly does one get that faith if they are outside of God's Church? There is no supernatural faith outside of God's Church. You have to be a member of the Church to be saved, and you have to be baptized to become a member of the Church. Period. The dogmas tell the truth.
Pope Alexander VIII
5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.-Condemned
Pope Clement XI
29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted.-Condemned
They are given supernatural faith through grace.
-
Excuse me Caraffa, but you are taking my words out of context, and you are making an unproved assumption by saying people outside the Church receive supernatural faith through grace. In another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7972&min=15&num=15),
...The necessary dogmas are contained in the Athanasian Creed, and their necessity is testified to by Pope Eugence IV, when he asserts the following:
"This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
So a person who does not believe the Catholic Faith cannot be saved, neither is this person Catholic. A person who believes, but is not baptized has natural faith, which may be a gift of prevenient grace from God, insofar as it disposes him to seek baptism, but it cannot save him without this sacrament.
Perfectly in line with infallible Catholic Tradition:
Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 5:"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification..."
How do they convert themselves to their own justification? As was laid out in the chapter immediately before this one:
Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 4: "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
So the burden is upon you not to refute a strawman argument, which you have built by implying that I said there is no grace outside of the Church, but the burden of proof is upon you to refute my assertion that it is the sacrament of baptism alone that confers SUPERNATURAL FAITH.
Furthermore, I offer you this ex cathedra decree to reassert that without the sacrament of faith, a person may not be justified:
Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7: "Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;"
-
...I base this on the fact that the Holy Mass is divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. If catechumens were inside the Church, they would be able to stay for the Mass of the Faithful, but instead, they are dismissed after the sermon (if there is one).
Does that still happen anywhere? I can't say I'd noticed any non-Catholics leaving after the sermon (and there often are non-Catholics at Mass).
-
The dogmas tell the truth.
Ah, but do you tell the truth about/properly understand the dogmas?
-
The dogmas tell the truth.
Ah, but do you tell the truth about/properly understand the dogmas?
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Hence why the church should explain, and not ones self?
Of course, this still leaves us in a 'pickle' with Vatican II in several spots, despite constant requests to 'interpret in light of tradition.'
Some places it is near impossible to interpret in light of tradition.
-
Vatican II is a "counter-syllabus" as Benedict XVI put it. It was meant to be in direct opposition to Tradition.
-
Dogmas are to be understood according to the OBJECTIVE SENSE of the text, as they have once been DECLARED, not as they have been once, twice or thrice explained. How is it that the explanations of dogmas can change? This is exactly what has been happening over time, especially with EENS.
Obviously, if someone believes them or explains them contrary to their OBJECTIVE SENSE, then they are believing or explaining them contrary to the Mind of the Church, which is the Mind of God the Holy Ghost.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." - Condemned.
-
If the meaning of Sacred Dogma is ever to be maintained, and the church has always consistently defended baptism by blood or desire, though not applying it as liberally as the present, should we not understand the dogma to take into account these?
-
Excuse me Caraffa, but you are taking my words out of context, and you are making an unproved assumption by saying people outside the Church receive supernatural faith through grace. In another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7972&min=15&num=15)
,
...The necessary dogmas are contained in the Athanasian Creed, and their necessity is testified to by Pope Eugence IV, when he asserts the following:
"This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
So a person who does not believe the Catholic Faith cannot be saved, neither is this person Catholic. A person who believes, but is not baptized has natural faith, which may be a gift of prevenient grace from God, insofar as it disposes him to seek baptism, but it cannot save him without this sacrament.
A natural faith you say CM? How did one arrive at such faith? By reason alone without grace?
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
-
This is THE ONE AND ONLY infallible decree that baptism of desire adherents are ever going to bring forward, and as we will see, this decree actually teaches CONTRARY to their heresy. Read this carefully, it's laid right out in black and white, and if you still believe in baptism of desire after this, it's because you WANT to.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, 1547, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV, ex cathedra: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (St. John 3:5)"
The problem here for baptism of desire and baptism of blood is twofold. First in order to believe in baptism of desire one has to falsely understand this decree in a manner, which necessarily involves denying the Canons on baptism, when the correct understanding does not necessitate this: The translation (to the state of grace) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire thereof, in the same sense as a man cannot sail a boat without a body of water upon which to sail, or the will to do so. Absence of either one renders the desired result impossible, until the absence is remedied. In this interpretation, no dogmas are denied, thus it is the correct interpretation.
This is further attested to by understanding the rules of logic when dealing with statements worded in this manner. This is the important section of the decree to pay attention to: "...cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
We are dealing with the negation of a compound statement. We are talking about something that CANNOT take place without this or that. In other words we are stating the circuмstances , which are necessary to exist for this event to be incapable of taking place: the absence of only one of the two above elements, the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. Only one has to be missing. Things would be entirely different if the disjunction were changed to a conjunction, that is if the word "or" was switched to the word "and", OR if the "cannot be effected, without" were switched to "can be effected with". Either one of these changes would completely alter the meaning of the phrase, whereas if both changes took place, there would be no change in the meaning whatsoever.
Here is a further breakdown of the rules of logic involved in the negation of a compound statement, as can be shown by this website (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/geometry/GP1/negatecompound.htm):
Negating a Conjunction (and) and a Disjunction (or):
If we were dealing with a conjunction:
"This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof."
The above statement would mean that BOTH must be missing for the translation the the state of justification to be impossible. Since BOTH have to be missing, this means that the presence of only one is sufficient to effect justification. Baptism of desire adherents would like it if the decree used a conjunction, but this is not the way it was decreed. The council used not a conjunction, but a disjunction:
Disjunction:
"This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof."
If the translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, then it cannot be effected if EITHER one is missing. So it can be said that "This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration" and "This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the desire thereof."
Now that we see this is the only way to understand this decree, it behooves us to examine ta common he one seemingly legitimate objection, namely that infants, since they have not attained the use of reason, cannot actively desire the sacrament of baptism. It is clear that the God would not decree something that is impossible, so it is clear that He means that in those receiving the sacrament, who have the use of reason, and are thus capable of desiring, it is necessary that the desire for the sacrament not be missing. Otherwise one would have to assert that baptism on infants is never valid. And the context of this session of the Council of Trent is
further attested to by Chapter 5 of the same session:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter V, On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "The Synod furthermore declares, that IN ADULTS, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ..."
Second, if the Council had purposed to teach baptism of desire, which would have been an exception to the dogmatic canons stating that water baptism is necessary, it certainly would have done so explicitly in the Canons on baptism, as would be fitting, rather than in the Decree on Justification. In fact, this Council did exactly that with regard to making an explicit exception in the decree on original sin, when it stated the following at the end of the same decree:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session V, Decree Concerning Original Sin, 1546, ex cathedra: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews."
And just for anecdotal purposes, don't you think, Caraffa, that if the decree were meant to teach baptism of desire, it would have said thins instead, which would not then appear to be contradictory:
Hypothetical decree with the Scripture verse that would have more likely been used to teach baptism of desire (as if the God the Holy Ghost could contradict Himself in these decrees!) "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can be effected, with the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)"
Food for thought.
-
Hypothetical decree with the Scripture verse that would have more likely been used to teach baptism of desire (as if the God the Holy Ghost could contradict Himself in these decrees!) "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can be effected, with the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; ...'
This part I find most interesting, especially in the nature that you have worded it. What you have provided follows the rules of a double negative exactly.
A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same clause. In the English grammar, a clause is a pair or group of words that consist of a subject and a predicate. The subject here would obviously be the translation to the state of grace, and the predicate consists of both 'the laver of regeneration', and 'or the desire thereof'. (It's been an awfully, awfully long time since I was in school, and my children are not taking this English yet, so correct me if I am wrong.)
This could validly be considered a double negative as there is only one subject. Cannot and without are both referring to what is required for the 'translation'. The translation (the subject) cannot be effected (applies to the subject I believe) without (again applies to the subject I believe, as the subject, without what follows, can not happen.)
In the case of a double negative, it would be valid and correct grammar to understand what you provided as accurate, minus the altered scripture verse of course.
Correct my understanding of English if I am wrong please! I just found out today the accurate usage of cannot and can not, so apparently I am in need of a refresher course.
-
By saying CM went too far in Feeneyism, what is your definition of Feeneyism? Feeney taught the truth of Outside of the Church there is No Salvation to ears that were stopped up with Americanism.
-
Sorry for the delay C.M.M.M.
First off, the words "cannot" and "can not" mean the same thing. Cannot is just more academically acceptable.
Second, you're right about what double negatives are, but this statement is not one.
"this translation to the state of justification" is the subject
"cannot be effected" is the predicate and together they form the clause. For this to be a double negative, the clause itself would have to contain double negation, but it does not. It would have to look like this to be a double negative: this translation to the state of justification cannot not be effected without this or that...)
De Morgan's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws) is the principle to apply in the negation of this compound statement.
According to De Morgan's Law:
NOT (A OR B) is logically equivalent to (NOT A) AND (NOT B)
This means that the statement is logically equivalent to this:
"...this translation, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration," AND "...this translation, cannot be effected, without the the desire thereof"
Simply put, only one of these needs to be missing for justification to be impossible.
-
Actually, Catholic Martyr, can not and cannot are completely different. They do mean the same thing, but correct usage is altogether different.
Cannot is used when it is impossible for something to happen without. For example..
Mankind cannot grow wings.
However, can not is used when something is possible, just not in the situation.
I can not go to the school
"this translation to the state of justification" is the subject "cannot be effected" is the predicate and together they form the clause. For this to be a double negative, the clause itself would have to contain double negation, but it does not.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, isn't a clause a complete sentence?
-
By saying CM went too far in Feeneyism, what is your definition of Feeneyism? Feeney taught the truth of Outside of the Church there is No Salvation to ears that were stopped up with Americanism.
By Feeneyism, I mean the denial of BOD/BOB. I actually don't mind Fr. Feeney, he was right to point out the secularism that was coming into Catholic schools, the liberalism in the hierarchy, Americanism, etc. Many of the theologians at the time were reducing EENS to a useless formula and their opinions as such were not based on scholastic theology.
-
By Feeneyism, I mean the denial of BOD/BOB. I actually don't mind Fr. Feeney, he was right to point out the secularism that was coming into Catholic schools, the liberalism in the hierarchy, Americanism, etc. Many of the theologians at the time were reducing EENS to a useless formula and their opinions as such were not based on scholastic theology.
Same here.
The cult around him gets boring, though.
-
Actually, Catholic Martyr, can not and cannot are completely different. They do mean the same thing, but correct usage is altogether different.
Cannot is used when it is impossible for something to happen without. For example..
Mankind cannot grow wings.
However, can not is used when something is possible, just not in the situation.
I can not go to the school
"this translation to the state of justification" is the subject "cannot be effected" is the predicate and together they form the clause. For this to be a double negative, the clause itself would have to contain double negation, but it does not.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, isn't a clause a complete sentence?
A clause can be a complete sentence, but some sentences are made up of more than one clause.
"without the laver of regeneration," is a dependent clause, and "or the desire thereof" creates a compound statement using a dependent or subordinate clause and an independent clause, (which is the clause mentioned in my previous post).
Again, you are correct that a double negative uses negation twice in the same clause, but this is not the case for the decree in the Council of Trent.
And forgive me in the case of cannot and can not. You are right (http://www.alexfiles.com/cannot.shtml). It's always nice to swap English lessons. :smile:
In any case, with your understanding of grammar it should be evidently clear to you now that baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be true.
-
So separate clauses can have the same subject within a sentence?
-
They can!
-
So explain to me again why we are negating this disjunction? I'm missing something.
-
"Cannot"
-
(Table taken from This Site (http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de/~nestleri/logic/02/index.html))
The Negated Disjunction
a b a NOR b
1)false false true
2)false true false
3)true false false
4)true true false
Let's break down the statement, according to what you've given so far. Let's hope I'm accurate.
*a NOR b* is obviously the statement on justification, and how it cannot take place, where *a* could be 'the laver of regeneration', and *b* could be 'desire thereof'.
According to the table, if both *a* or *b* are false, than the statement is true, that justification cannot take place. Everything seems accurate so far.
However, if one of either *a* or *b* are false, the statement *a NOR b* is also false. Meaning the statement that justification can not take place false.
Finally, if both *a* and *b* are true, the statement *a NOR b* is false. Meaning the statement that justification can not take place false.
In summary, according to the table...
Justification can not occur it both the laver of regeneration and desire thereof are not present.
Justification can occur if either the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof are present.
Justification can occur if both the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof are present.
Did I miss something?
-
You did miss something, I'm afraid.
You treat "without the laver of regeneration" as something that can be either true or false in and of itself, as if true means it's there and false means it's not. No, you have to operate on the value (T/F) of the proposition in the statement. You have to say: "If it is true/false that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration/desire thereof, then..." You have to do this for both propositions to produce a correct result of true or false.
Also, you somehow ended up with the wrong table, the logical NOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_NOR), which produces illogical results when properly used.
The truth table you want is the one for the logical disjunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction). As we continue, you will see that this is the only table that can be correct.
To demonstrate that the table you chose was not the correct one, I will operate on the values of both propositions in this sentence, which follows all the same rules as the decree we've been discussing.
I cannot walk without moving my limbs or stepping.
Now to operate on the value of the propositions in this statement, using the logical NOR table:
F F T
IF it is TRUE that I cannot walk without moving my limbs, and
IF it is TRUE that I cannot walk without stepping,
THEN it is FALSE that I cannot walk without moving my limbs or stepping.
Doesn't quite work does it?
Using the truth table for the logical disjunction, we get the correct results across the board, as you can plainly see:
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
So, back to justification, using line two in the table for example:
IF it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration (as the decree saith), and even IF it is FALSE that it cannot be effected without the desire thereof (as the decree does not say), THEN it is still TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof. That is to say, it is still impossible for it to be effected with one or the other missing (in this case the one that has to be missing is the laver of regeneration).
SO, according to line one in the Table (what the Catholic dogma has been all along since the promulgation of this decree):
SINCE it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration (as the decree says), and SINCE it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the desire thereof (again, as the decree says), THEN it is TRUE that it cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof.
And we are now right back to De Morgan's Law.
-
So we are no longer dealing with a negated disjunction, as you said previously?
And if this is a simple logical disjunction, (which differs from before, as you said cannot negates the disjunction) then...
If it is FALSE that justification cannot take lace without the laver of regeneration, and it is FALSE that justification cannot take place without the desire thereof, than, according to your table, is it FALSE that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration, or the desire there of.
Right?
-
And that is why you read twice before posting...
-
So we are no longer dealing with a negated disjunction, as you said previously?
Yes, we are. A logical disjunction. "OR" is a disjunction. And since you made it necessary by applying the incorrect truth table (one that makes no sense in any statement that you try to use it with) I am specifying that it is a logical disjunction. The compound statement, wherein it is contained is negated by "cannot".
And if this is a simple logical disjunction, (which differs from before, as you said cannot negates the disjunction) then...
It doesn't differ at all from what I said. It's what I have said from the beginning. Read and see for yourself.
The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for exclusive disjunction, which hasn't any practical value in language (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/#IncExcDis):
If it is FALSE that justification cannot take lace without the laver of regeneration, and it is FALSE that justification cannot take place without the desire thereof, than, according to your table, is it FALSE that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration, or the desire there of.
Right?
Yes, that's right and I know you realize that the Council would not utter the propositions if they in fact were false, therefore we know that they are true. Arbitrarily changing the values of the propositions is merely an exercise in logic (a rather redundant one, which I am not exactly sure why we are even doing). So where's the problem?
-
Also, I just noticed this:
A natural faith you say CM? How did one arrive at such faith? By reason alone without grace?
Caraffa, why are you conveniently ignoring the words that are plain as day in front of your face? I said PREVENIENT GRACE[/u] more than once in this thread, but you've continually ignored it. Why? And you even quoted the very words right before you asked this question, which I have already answered for you in the very same quote!
Excuse me Caraffa, but you are taking my words out of context...
...A person who believes, but is not baptized has natural faith, which may be a gift of prevenient GRACE from God, insofar as it disposes him to seek baptism, but it cannot save him without this sacrament.
A natural faith you say CM? How did one arrive at such faith? By reason alone without grace?
You seem to want to assert that faith and grace are the same thing. This is not so. Grace necessarily precedes faith, though faith, once conferred on an individual, can also be instrumental in increasing grace, but not without first responding to grace.
Sorry for calling you out like that Caraffa, but in the words of C.M.M.M.:
And that is why you read twice before posting...
Tell me about it. And for what, folks? To say that decrees of God the Holy Ghost can contradict one another? Or to say that even though (according to you) the objective sense of the text may be contradictory, but we can deny the objective sense of the words of the decree? To say that someone can be saved who is not Catholic? Or even someone who has not even heard of Jesus Christ?
-
Woe to any man who dies while believing that a decree of God the Holy Ghost DOESN'T REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.
St. John 9:41: "Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth."
Think material vs formal heresy here people and if it doesn't start to hit home now, then I don't know what will... also, think invincible ignorance of the true Faith not being sinful; ie not damned for infidelity, but still damned for original sin and actual mortal sins against the natural law. Those who can know on the other hand, they are condemned for infidelity also, hence:
St. Matthew10:15: "Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE ALL THE DECREES OF GOD THE HOLY GHOST AS THEY STAND?
Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?
God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.
Lest PERHAPS we die??? Shame on you Eve! God said nothing of perhaps!
No, you shall not die the death.
Hmmm... sound familiar?
Why hath God commanded you, that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?
Lest what? Lest perhaps we don't get baptism of desire or baptism of blood, which are both contrary to the very words of the God-man Himself and contrary to the decrees of God the Holy Ghost?
Forget it satan! I believe God's words AS HE DECLARED THEM.
-
The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for exclusive disjunction which hasn't any practical value in language
Pardon me. This should have read as follows:
The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for logical NOR, but we are dealing with a simple logical disjunction, since it cannot be an exclusive disjunction which hasn't any practical value in language.
-
You treat "without the laver of regeneration" as something that can be either true or false in and of itself, as if true means it's there and false means it's not. No, you have to operate on the value (T/F) of the proposition in the statement. You have to say: "If it is true/false that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration/desire thereof, then..." You have to do this for both propositions to produce a correct result of true or false.
How does that alter it? Let us say that 'If it is true that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration', and enter that into the table in place of where I provided 'laver of regeneration' as a necessity for justification, it makes no difference to the table. To recieve justification, you must receive the laver of regeneration. The values are the same. Me treating it as true or false is simply a way to shorten the amount of typing I must do. :wink:
Here is a further breakdown of the rules of logic involved in the negation of a compound statement, as can be shown by this website:
K, we're dealing with Negation a compound statement...
Negating a Conjunction (and) and a Disjunction (or):
K, the compound statement is a disjunction.
We're dealing Negation of a Disjunction! (Bad assumption on my part.)
I still don't see how the aNORb table is illogical. I can give an excellent example that supports it.
The opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.
Are both required? Not necessarily. It supports the aNORb table perfectly. But if we apply this to your table, we get illogical answers, as either would be sufficient to keep the opera house open.
And the only reason I'm debating on the logic tables is that each portion of the table must be valid if the logic is to be validly used, to my knowledge. If one portion of the table is false, than logically, the statement is not supported under that law, and our interpretation must be wrong.
I think... apparently logic is not my strong suit.
-
K, the compound statement is a disjunction.
Well technically no. The disjunction is contained in the compound statement. We are negating the compound statement and we are also necessarily negating the disjunction in the compound statement.
How does that alter it?
It alters it by operating on the subordinate clause alone (which clause alone cannot be true or false, since it is not a proposition), rather than on each of the propositions, consisting of the independent clause and one of the subordinate clauses.
I still don't see how the aNORb table is illogical. I can give an excellent example that supports it.
The opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.
logical NOR is not for use in linguistics, but to give your statement the benefit of doubt, let's do the work:
(Table taken from This Site (http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de/~nestleri/logic/02/index.html))
The Negated Disjunction
a b a NOR b
1)false false true
2)false true false
3)true false false
4)true true false
We'll use line 4 of the truth table for logical NOR:
IF it is TRUE that the opera house cannot stay open without government funding, and
IF it is TRUE that the opera house cannot stay open without public support, THEN
IT is FALSE (?!?!?!) that the opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.
And the only reason I'm debating on the logic tables is that each portion of the table must be valid if the logic is to be validly used, to my knowledge. If one portion of the table is false, than logically, the statement is not supported under that law, and our interpretation must be wrong.
Correct. See above.
By the way, here is a correct example of what logical NOR is used for:
(note that it is not linguistics)
(http://www.fareastgizmos.com/entry_images/0407/26/princeton.jpg)
I think... apparently logic is not my strong suit.
Well, we're all in this together to help each other out, as long as we all come to truly desire to recognize and obey Truth. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to get off the topic of logic now.
In fact, let's segue: Please answer me two somethings, and please do be honest:
Do you WANT to believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
If so, why?
-
Yes, I do. Why?
If Baptism by Blood or Desire is false, what have we accomplished?
We've proved every church father was a heretic.
We've proved that constant church teaching, although never infallibly defined, has changed.
We've proved that every doctor of the church was a heretic.
We've proved many a saint, although canonized, can not actually be in heaven.
We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.
We've proved that every Native American who lived in North America, or every Aboriginal who lived in Australia, or Aztec, etc, etc, prior to Catholicism crossing the ocean, is burning in hell for the sin of being predestined by God to be born where they could never become Catholic.
It all seems overly fishy to me. God's justice is supreme for sure,but that is along with his mercy, his love, and his forgiveness.
We've proved that the breviary is also filled with error, as it lists 3 saints who received Baptism by Blood.
What if Peter infallibly defined the idea of Baptism by Blood or Desire, we just have no record of it? It was passed on as sacred tradition, and that is why all the fathers preach it, all teh doctors preach it, saint's are justified by it, yet we deny it?
It makes no sense. That is why I feel it must be right.
Alright, my rant done. Now, explain to me why you feel they must be wrong.
-
Yes, I do. Why?
If Baptism by Blood or Desire is false, what have we accomplished?
We've ascertained the truth, which cannot ever contradict the truth. Anyone who believes that infallible decrees can contradict one another, truly does not have Divine and Catholic Faith.
We've proved every church father was a heretic.
Wrong. Heresy is the denial of a dogma. A dogma is something the Church proposes for belief as Divinely revealed either in her solemn Magisterium or in her Ordinary and universal Magisterium. The Church Fathers were not infallible, although it is understood to be infallible when ALL the Church Fathers who taught on a matter taught the same thing with no dissenting opinions. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are part of neither Magisterium, since there have been dissenting opinions on both sides prior to the infallible decrees, which make it clear that only baptism of water cleanses original sin and makes one a member of the Church.
And this is exactly why St. Peter and his successors were given the gift of infallibility, so that by the exercise of his office, he could put an end to any lawful debates on doctrinal issues by declaring an infallible dogmatic decree.
We've proved that constant church teaching, although never infallibly defined, has changed.
Truths of Faith never change. Dogmas never change. Human knowledge of dogmas progresses over time, however. Moses and the prophets knew comparatively little about God, whereas if they were to have had a chat with a Christian from the future, even a lay person, they would be astounded at the treasury of the knowledge of God, which has been bestowed upon us in the fullness of time.
We've proved that every doctor of the church was a heretic.
Again, not so. Aquinas, who taught baptism of desire, died before the Council Vienne, which ended any lawful debate on whether a person could be cleansed from original sin in this manner. Alphonsus, on the other hand, was aware of the teachings of Trent, and yet baptism of desire is attributed to his writings. See argument below.
We've proved many a saint, although canonized, can not actually be in heaven.
How have we done that? Have you ever heard of tampering? Or retractions? Or material heresy? Or loss of the use of reason (ie; senility)? These are all possible explanations for why saints are indeed saints, who have been canonized and yet have heresies attributed to them. And if it should turn out that a canonization was in fact erroneous (and neither your nor I have the right to presume to state as much), it must be remembered that canonizations are not Truths proposed as Divinely revealed, are based upon fallible evidence and human testimony, and so are not infallible to begin with.
We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.
Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.
We've proved that every Native American who lived in North America, or every Aboriginal who lived in Australia, or Aztec, etc, etc, prior to Catholicism crossing the ocean, is burning in hell for the sin of being predestined by God to be born where they could never become Catholic.
And why would that be the case do you suppose? Has it ever occurred to you to read the Old Testament? God suffered ALL THE WORLD except the Israelites to be delivered up to idolatry, and therefore to be damned. This is indeed a just punishment for original sin, and for multiplying sins against His Majesty.
Now consider the peoples you have listed. Which group among them are NOT idolaters?
It all seems overly fishy to me. God's justice is supreme for sure,but that is along with his mercy, his love, and his forgiveness.
I used to feel the way you do now. And you are right to say that God's justice is supreme. God gives all His creatures what is their due. But He doesn't OWE anybody His mercy. It is appointed for a man once to die, and that is the just wages of sin. The fact that God has deigned to give us a Redeemer in Jesus Christ, who mercifully preached to us that sublime and narrow way to salvation is a gratuitous act of mercy, as is the gift of grace that He gives to all those who will embark upon that path.
We've proved that the breviary is also filled with error, as it lists 3 saints who received Baptism by Blood.
I don't know anything about this, though I have heard arguments about certain saints, such as Emerantiana and Genesius, but the fact is that there is not any proof that they never received baptism. In fact Augustine believes that Genesius did receive baptism validly while on the stage, and it is rather a strange notion to believe that Emerantiana would have been out and about, praying in public as an unbaptized Catechumen during a bitter persecution. Anyway, suffice it to say that the breviary is not an ex cathedra decree.
What if Peter infallibly defined the idea of Baptism by Blood or Desire, we just have no record of it? It was passed on as sacred tradition, and that is why all the fathers preach it, all teh doctors preach it, saint's are justified by it, yet we deny it?
Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.
It makes no sense. That is why I feel it must be right.
That's because you are building to yourself a graven image, a false jesus christ, who's teachings do not resemble those of the Creator God-man Jesus Christ, the King of all creation. Sadly, your religion is fraught with contradiction until you recognize the truth in the many authoritative statements of the Church, and God Himself, which state that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT (not can not, but cannot) enter the kingdom of heaven.
Alright, my rant done. Now, explain to me why you feel they must be wrong.
God simply does not contradict Himself. Your position demands that you say He does. Or that you say God the Holy Ghost truly does not speak in ex cathedra decrees. Or that St. Peter and his successors do not the perform the office of Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Please understand that denying baptism of desire is not a popular position to hold, and I know this. Yet it is the correct position. The proof of this is in the dogmatic decrees of Holy Mother Church, not in what theologians and other fallible men and women may say.
The Catholic Faith is glorious, unchanging and perfect, just like it's Divine Founder, yet belief in baptism of desire and baptism of blood poke holes in God's credibility and His consistency, destroys the coherence of dogmatic statements of the popes and encourages a person to believe in salvation outside the Church, and indeed the fruits of these heresies are manifest today throughout the world.
For example, we have people like Bishop Sanborn (whom I was frighteningly close to following, before God gave me the grace to reject him and baptism of desire) who believes pagans and idolaters can be saved while they are still pagans and idolaters.
Rejecting baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and the opposition and persecution it may bring, are simply necessary to be Catholic. A person cannot, without sin, pretend it isn't heresy, just because most people of the age don't believe it is.
Is it enough to just believe in God for salvation?
St. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
No. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. But even being one who is baptized, yet does not believe, as the Lord says, leads to condemnation. I take it you're baptized? Good. Start believing. Be saved.
Finally, I would like to pass along a part of an email I received from someone today who has recognized the truth in the matter of baptism of desire:
I just wanted you to know I have not run away, still around. I am currently reading a book that "######" sent. Funny thing in this book about Feeney. There is a most excellant description of the American Martyrs. HMMM, Fr. Jean de Brébeuf had been teaching the Indians, they were ready for Baptism. If Fr. de Brébeuf had believed in BOD (surely by this point as he was walking through pure hell to get back to the Indians to baptize them, so they were ready), he would have stayed where he was at and not risked the Iroquois who were on a rampage. If he believed in BOD then he would have thought it is good enough, and the Indians had the desire to be baptized and so all would be well. But, no. He did not believe, clearly as he went back had such horrendous torture and finally ended with his heart ripped out of his beating chest. Clearly he had never heard of BOD or "close enough is good enough."
Now go look yourself in the mirror and see if you can utter this sentence without lying:
"I BELIEVE ALL OF GOD'S WORDS EXACTLY AS THEY ARE DECLARED IN THE INFALLIBLE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM."
-
Wrong. Heresy is the denial of a dogma. A dogma is something the Church proposes for belief as Divinely revealed either in her solemn Magisterium or in her Ordinary and universal Magisterium. The Church Fathers were not infallible, although it is understood to be infallible when ALL the Church Fathers who taught on a matter taught the same thing with no dissenting opinions. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are part of neither Magisterium, since there have been dissenting opinions on both sides prior to the infallible decrees, which make it clear that only baptism of water cleanses original sin and makes one a member of the Church.
Can you demonstrate which of the Fathers dissented from baptism by desire or blood? You can PM them to me, or place them here..
Truths of Faith never change. Dogmas never change. Human knowledge of dogmas progresses over time, however. Moses and the prophets knew comparatively little about God, whereas if they were to have had a chat with a Christian from the future, even a lay person, they would be astounded at the treasury of the knowledge of God, which has been bestowed upon us in the fullness of time.
I don't see how this even addresses my question. It can be shown that baptism by desire and blood have been an accepted teaching in the church, almost since it's inception. If the church has clarified it's position and made such ideas impossible through ex cathedra statements, why did it not explicitly say that baptism by desire or blood are wrong, especially after they were so ably defended by Thomas in his Summa, which was present at Trent.
It's true our knowledge of the truth can grow, but if the truths of the faith never change, and the early church, up until you, (or whomever began the no baptism by blood or desire debate) taught them, how is that not a change?
But I'm sure this will be easier to address when you provide your list.
Again, not so. Aquinas, who taught baptism of desire, died before the Council Vienne, which ended any lawful debate on whether a person could be cleansed from original sin in this manner.
I'm sure this will be part of your list. I'd like to look at it. Call me lazy, but if I am compiling a list in support, I doubt I will have time to compile a list for against as well, at least in a timely manner.
How have we done that? Have you ever heard of tampering? Or retractions? Or material heresy? Or loss of the use of reason (ie; senility)? These are all possible explanations for why saints are indeed saints, who have been canonized and yet have heresies attributed to them. And if it should turn out that a canonization was in fact erroneous (and neither your nor I have the right to presume to state as much), it must be remembered that canonizations are not Truths proposed as Divinely revealed, are based upon fallible evidence and human testimony, and so are not infallible to begin with.
I have heard of all those things. Do you have any concrete, un-disputable proof that all the docuмents from past councils, letters from past popes, or any writing you would use to condemn are not tampered with?
And we do not have the authority to state saints are not saints, but we have the authority to says popes are not popes? I will need clarification on that.
Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.
That seems awful close to a strawman, if my understanding of a strawman is accurate.
My statement was built on the assumption that a child can obtain baptism only after exiting the womb. Indeed, if this child was condemned to hell, it would be only for original sin. My point was it is impossible for an aborted child to be baptized, and as such, the free will of it's parents have ultimately placed it in a situation where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding.
Which again makes no sense, as God is bound by nothing.
And why would that be the case do you suppose? Has it ever occurred to you to read the Old Testament? God suffered ALL THE WORLD except the Israelites to be delivered up to idolatry, and therefore to be damned. This is indeed a just punishment for original sin, and for multiplying sins against His Majesty.
Now consider the peoples you have listed. Which group among them are NOT idolaters?
This seems insulting. Yes, I have read the old testament. Has it ever occurred to you to practice humility. Fantastic that you have read the old testament and may completely understand it in it's entirety (though I expect you only know the parts which support your beliefs, and no little of the rest), I am no old testament scholar.
I think, again however, you miss the point. It is almost the same as above, with the aborted. These men and women were born into a society, by God's will, where they would never have the chance to hear Catholic truth. God has predestined them to damnation in a sense, by allowing them to be born in a place where they would never receive valid baptism.
Damned for original sin alone, or damned for original sin and idolatry is little different. Both are in hell.
Both never had the opportunity to escape hell fire.
God is bound to that.
Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.
I feel this is definitely unfair. The question is purely hypothetical. Just we know that Saint Joseph was a widower and he had children from a previous marriage through sacred tradition, though there is no record of such, how can we be completely sure that Saint Peter did not infallibly teach baptism by blood or desire?
In Acts 10:34-35, Peter is awful close to doing so.
And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.
How can Cornelius be acceptable without Baptism?
Hypothetical, of course.
As far as Jean de Brebuef is concerned, that is a very large assumption.
Trent says that reception of communion and reconciliation are not necessary for salvation. Yet why do people place themselves in such danger to receive them?
-
:smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc: :smash-pc:
:smile:
-
Poor "Catholic Martyr" has inverted the rule of doctrinal tradition. He doesn't accept what has been handed down as a rule of belief, rather he subjects this rule to his own arbitrary opining, thereby declaring doctors of the Church heretics and deposing Popes from their rightful throne. It's truly a sad spectacle as he has cast out everyone from the Church but himself where he stands alone. When he is confronted with an authority, he does not faint from asserting individual men are not infallible, implying error on the part of a great doctor. 'Tis very unfortunate that he is too blinded by pride so as not to be able to assert this of his own opinions. So rare is this form of pride that I suspect a demon is fomenting this vice directly.
-
this decree actually teaches CONTRARY to their heresy.
I'm sure this would be quite a surprise to every theologian since the great council. Even if we accepted your absurd opinions, it still would not amount to an actual heresy as the doctrine of baptism of desire implies its necessity, though the effects are received in a different manner. In short, it doesn't deny any part of revelation, rather it affirms baptism's absolute necessity by relating said desire, that is actually willing to receive the sacrament, to the sacrament itself. This is true of Penance and the Eucharist as well.
-
We are dealing with the negation of a compound statement. We are talking about something that CANNOT take place without this or that. In other words we are stating the circuмstances , which are necessary to exist for this event to be incapable of taking place: the absence of only one of the two above elements, the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. Only one has to be missing. Things would be entirely different if the disjunction were changed to a conjunction, that is if the word "or" was switched to the word "and", OR if the "cannot be effected, without" were switched to "can be effected with". Either one of these changes would completely alter the meaning of the phrase, whereas if both changes took place, there would be no change in the meaning whatsoever.
Ah, so your handy logical analysis supercedes dogmatic tradition. Why am I not surprised that you're not surprised that this is just now coming to light. At any rate, all disjunctive and conjuctive propositions can be reduced to conditional propositions. As is clear from the text, the term "or" implies that only one of the conditions is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the proposition itself.
"This translation however cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire"
"The arrest cannot be effected except through placing him in handcuffs or filing for a warrant."
Notice the arrest can be effected in either way, so too with Justification. Converting the proposition into a universal affirmative "can only" changes its quality, but not its meaning for it still asserts the same thing. The idea of negating a conjunction with "neither, nor" is irrelevant as that is not the form of the proposition in question.
-
Poor "Catholic Martyr" has inverted the rule of doctrinal tradition. He doesn't accept what has been handed down as a rule of belief, rather he subjects this rule to his own arbitrary opining, thereby declaring doctors of the Church heretics and deposing Popes from their rightful throne. It's truly a sad spectacle as he has cast out everyone from the Church but himself where he stands alone. When he is confronted with an authority, he does not faint from asserting individual men are not infallible, implying error on the part of a great doctor. 'Tis very unfortunate that he is too blinded by pride so as not to be able to assert this of his own opinions. So rare is this form of pride that I suspect a demon is fomenting this vice directly.
:cry: :cry: :cry: St. Thomas Aquinus pray for us.
-
-
It can be shown that baptism by desire and blood have been an accepted teaching in the church, almost since it's inception. If the church has clarified it's position and made such ideas impossible through ex cathedra statements, why did it not explicitly say that baptism by desire or blood are wrong, especially after they were so ably defended by Thomas in his Summa, which was present at Trent.
It's true our knowledge of the truth can grow, but if the truths of the faith never change, and the early church, up until you, (or whomever began the no baptism by blood or desire debate) taught them, how is that not a change?
It means that when they taught erroneously they were not teaching the truths of the Faith! Church Fathers were not infallible! How many times do you need to hear this? The pope is the only one who can speak infallibly, and that is why HE defines the Catholic Faith, no one else. Just because some Fathers taught erroneous doctrines does not mean that they were heretics, since they were not denying any dogma.
Do you have any concrete, un-disputable proof that all the docuмents from past councils, letters from past popes, or any writing you would use to condemn are not tampered with?
Of course not! Do I need it? No. The Ecuмenical Councils and other infallible decrees of the popes are where I hang my hat. Yes it is possible that evil men have corrupted them, just as it is possible that evil men have corrupted the writings of saints. But I still will take the decrees that are held to be infallible over something that is acknowledged as fallible every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
And we do not have the authority to state saints are not saints, but we have the authority to says popes are not popes? I will need clarification on that.
Who do you have to disobey, if you try to say that this or that saint, who has heretical writings attributed to him or her is actually a non-Catholic heretic. You have to disobey the pope, who is the highest authority on earth, because the pope canonized him or her, and by doing so stated that they were indeed a holy Catholic saint.
Now, who do you have to disobey if a person who claims to the pope has manifestly heretical writings? You have to disobey the person who claims to be pope, but if they are a public manifest heretic, then they are not Catholic, and cannot be the pope at all, nor are they due your obedience. You, who are so eager to obey saints, take heed:
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
Also, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, we read the following:
Catholic Encyclopedia, Papal Elections: "A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V (1294). Even the election of a married man would not be invalid (c. "Qui uxorem", 19, caus. 33, Q. 5). Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void."
-
We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.
Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.
That seems awful close to a strawman, if my understanding of a strawman is accurate.
No. A strawman is misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I did not represent your position at all. I simply stated the truth of why those infants are damned.
You seem to ignore the fact that as much as God saves many without their active cooperation and consent (baptized infants who die before attaining the use of reason), it is equally just for Him to allow the reprobation of many in the same way, especially when it is the sins of men that have brought this upon them in the first place.
Indeed, if this child was condemned to hell, it would be only for original sin. My point was it is impossible for an aborted child to be baptized, and as such, the free will of it's parents have ultimately placed it in a situation where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding...
Not exactly. Their sin, which was foreknown to God, condemned their child to death before the child is able to receive baptism. God does not condemn them to hell, the sin into which they were conceived condemns them to hell, and again, God does not OWE salvation to anybody.
...where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding... Which again makes no sense, as God is bound by nothing.
Wrong again. God is perfect justice, do you agree? So if God makes an oath, don't you agree he will infallibly and perfectly keep it? God binds Himself to His oaths and keeps them infallibly. His oath is in St. John 3:5, begining with "Amen, amen I say to you,"
...would never have the chance to hear Catholic truth. God has predestined them to damnation in a sense, by allowing them to be born in a place where they would never receive valid baptism.
The part in bold is heresy. I just thought you would like to be made aware of this.
Damned for original sin alone, or damned for original sin and idolatry is little different. Both are in hell.
Both never had the opportunity to escape hell fire.
God is bound to that.
Your argument is specious. You are denying the mercy of God and His ability to bestow it on whomever He will. If there was a good willed person in the world, even far, far away from any people who held the true religion, do you not think that God would get an Israelite priest (in the Old Testament) or the sacrament of baptism to them, even if He had to resort to using miraculous means to do so?
I offer the Old Testament example of Rahab the harlot, who, rather than being destroyed, was accepted into the family of God, the people of Israel. I offer also again the example of Caius of Korea.
In addition, I will offer this interesting excerpt from the Revelations of St. Brigitta:
As to why, given that the human soul is better than the world, preachers are not sent always and everywhere, I answer: The soul is indeed worthier and nobler than all the world, and more lasting than all things. The soul is more worthy, because she is a spiritual creature like the angels and made for eternal joy. She is more noble because she was made in the image of my divinity, both immortal and eternal. Because humankind is worthier and nobler than all creatures, the human race should live more nobly as having been endowed with reason beyond all the rest. If they abuse their reason and my divine gifts, what wonder is it if, at the time of judgment, I punish that which had been overlooked in the time of mercy?
So preachers are not sent always and everywhere, because I, God, foreseeing the hardness of many hearts, spare my chosen ones the trouble, so that they need not work in vain. And because many, deliberately sinning with full knowledge, decide to persevere in sin rather than to be converted, they are not worthy to hear the messengers of salvation.
Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.
I feel this is definitely unfair. The question is purely hypothetical. Just we know that Saint Joseph was a widower and he had children from a previous marriage through sacred tradition, though there is no record of such, how can we be completely sure that Saint Peter did not infallibly teach baptism by blood or desire?
The life of St. Joseph is not a doctrine of faith or morals. Baptism is a doctrine of faith. The Bible and the Catholic Church's Tradition are PUBLIC revelation.
In Acts 10:34-35, Peter is awful close to doing so.
Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35: "And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him."
This passage supports the Catholic position, that is a person tries their best to adhere to the natural law written on their hearts, God will accept them and bring them into His faith, unto salvation.
How can Cornelius be acceptable without Baptism?
Hypothetical, of course.
As far as Jean de Brebuef is concerned, that is a very large assumption.
If you believed that the desire to receive baptism counted for the deed, would you risk being tortured to go baptizin'?
Trent says that reception of communion and reconciliation are not necessary for salvation. Yet why do people place themselves in such danger to receive them?
Maybe this is what you are talking about:
Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein."
If they do not make every possible effort to get the sacrament, then it shows that they didn't truly desire the sacrament in the first place, and one has to wonder if they even had perfect contrition, which is a supernatural gift of grace from God, by the way.
Besides, Trent clearly teaches that a person is BOUND to receive the sacrament of penance, and that it IS necessary for forgiveness of sins committed after baptism.
Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5: "From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism;"
So in our case, when the only sacraments available are those of heretics, it would be sinful to receive them, and we must not. But in the case of a person who might have to risk his life to go get the sacrament from a valid and orthodox Catholic priest, he must make the attempt, since he cannot know for sure if he has perfect contrition, or merely attrition.
Reject baptism of desire already.
Go try saying this statement while looking your reflection in the eyes:
"I believe all of God's words as they have been declared in the infallible Solemn Magisterium."
-
-
By the way, the list of Church Fathers who dissented from BoD and BoB, and taught the absolute necessity of water baptism is contained in the last post of page 4 in this thread.
-
-
-
-
It is quite peculiar that you except Trent's teaching on the desire of Penance and the Eucharist, but not Baptism. Why the double standard?
I accept ALL of Trent. You are the one who does not. The causes of justification are clearly set out in Session 6, Chapter 7.
"The causes of justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask the faith that gives eternal life ..."
Desire is NOT among them, hence YOU are misunderstanding Trent, not I.
Well you can baldly assert something until you're blue in the face, but you need to demonstrate how it is a contradiction.
Hmmm... Boldly, perhaps you meant to say? I have plenty of hair on my head, thanks. Why don't we let you demonstrate in your own words how there is a contradiciton:
Sure, the effects aren't exactly the same, for example, the character is not received, but for the purposes of justification, from being translated from sin to grace, the effects are substantially the same.
But they haven't received baptism Caminus. No sacramental character, no baptism. No baptism, no justification, since it is the instrumental cause. Your lack of linguistic understanding aside, surely you cannot deny that the Council of Trent was EXPLICITLY declaring the causes of justification in the Chapter I cited above. You will not that this chapter does NOT mention desire for baptism. Again, you are completely misunderstanding the issue, despite numerous admonitions and proofs.
For the third time, to say that one can receive the fruit of the sacrament by means of a particular kind of willing moved by grace is to actually affirm the necessity of the sacrament. In order to have a contradiction, you need to demonstrate a negation of the proposition "baptism is necessary for salvation." You also need to demonstrate that "baptism" must necessarily in every possible case refer to the literal application of water.
How about "If anyone saith that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema." But you wiggle around it like the heretic you are.
Another aspect of your problem is that you alone presume to understand the definitions in the exact same sense and manner as those who promulgated them. You don't seem to realize that the interpreter of the magisterium is tradition itself, which you reject in favor of your own opinions. In this respect, you are no traditional catholic at all, but a heretic, i.e. one who picks and chooses.
Picks and chooses? Excuse me, but Traditions that are based upon the objective sense of a dogma are Catholic Traditions, and traditions which reject this objective sense are traditions of men.
Yes, you're a picker and a chooser. You don't like this doctrine because you mistakenly think that it contradicts dogma. How is it that making a "spiritual communion" doesn't contradict dogma relating to the Eucharist, but baptism of desire does?
Because I believe all of the decrees in the sense that they were declared, you think I am picking and choosing, but since these dogmas have an objective sense, there is no arbitration on my part at all. I have but to assent and obey.
Poor "Catholic Martyr" has inverted the rule of doctrinal tradition.
THIS is the rule of Catholic Tradition:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Do you deny this? Would you invert this? You do Caminus, you do. You hereticaly say my assertion that a doctor is fallible is an attack on authority. Not so. The only authority that matters is the HIGHEST authority, which authority it is heresy to contradict.
This is amusing, for when the highest authority disagrees with your understanding, you simply depose him. What about Innocent III? What about Pius XII? What about Pius X? Or Leo XIII or even the Fathers of Trent when they placed the Summa on the altar next to the Scriptures? Are you seriously implying that the tradition of the Fathers doesn't constitute an authoriy? You haven't a leg to stand on my friend.
The tradition of the Fathers DOES constitute and authority, but ONLY when it is unbroken by dissenting opinions and when it does not contradict any defined dogmas.
Even one dissenting opinion doesn't necessarily mitigate against a moral unanimity, even if you could provide one which I don't think you can.
How about a whole list of them. Page 4 of this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7970&min=45&num=15), last post on it.
Caminus, show me one instance where any of the above people spoke ex cathedra and taught baptism of desire as a declared dogma. In vitur of his office as pope, with the intent to BIND ALL CHRISTIANS. You can't. Only Pius XII taught it, and he did not even try to invoke infallibility, nor could he, since he was a public heretic and not pope.
They don't have to speak "ex cathedra" in order for you to be obliged to believe something. That is yet another error on your part.
No they don't Caminus. I never said they did. I do not hold that error at all. I hold the CORRECT and CATHOLIC position that when a pope teaches PUBLICLY on a matter, then we are bound to assent to his teaching, even if he does so in his fallible capacity. If it should turn out that a subsequent pope teaches contrary to this, then we must assent to the new teaching. This is why baptism of desire, though once an allowable theological opinion, is now heresy. It denies the subsequent teachings of several popes on the absolute necessity of water baptism.
What it comes down to is this Caminus: YOU DO DENY the decree that states dogmas are to be understood AS THEY HAVE ONCE BEEN DECLARED, and then you try and wiggle your way out of being exposed.
The only thing being exposed in this thread is your sheer lunacy. Of course I take decrees according to the intention of the lawgiver as explained by the Fathers and theologians and even the magisterium itself when it has explained itself. It is in fact you who have not understood the dogma itself. Imagine that, catholic martyr is wrong and all the doctors, theologians and Fathers of the Catholic Church are right! What a crazy thought!
If you go to page 4 of this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7970&min=45&num=15) and read the last post there, you will have to say that all those Fathers were wrong too.
Reject the traditions of men that contradict those of the Church, absolutely. Your position basically asserts that NOBODY in the Church can commit an error, as long as they are a pope or bishop or Church Father, but then your position completely breaks down, since there has not been an unbroken opinion concerning baptism of desire or baptism of blood in the Early Church, let alone among theologians even today. No two theologians teach this supposed doctrine in the same terms at all.
The more you speak, the more I realize that you are not catholic. I'm not sure when kind of strange bird you are, but you are definately not catholic. No catholic in his right mind would call the sacred tradition of the Church a contemptible "tradition of men." Putting words in my mouth in order to divert from your insanity won't help much.
I put no words in your mouth at all, you're projecting your own crimes onto me.
Where do Sacred traditions come from, if not from the authority of the Church? And if the Church infallibly rules on a doctrine, and then someone ignores it and presumes to teach contrary, are they acting with the authority of the Church? No.
Furthermore, if you want to talk tradition of the Church:
The Church has not allowed for the faithful to offer prayers, sacrifices or oblations for the unbaptized deceased, and you know this. This tradition reflects the truth that these people are in fact not justified and they are in hell. Otherwise, if baptism of blood or baptism of desire were true, you would have to say that this is an evil tradition, which prevents certain souls in Purgatory from attaining heaven in a timely manner. Unless you want to argue that baptism of desire removes all the debt of temporal punishment, but then you would be in an even smaller camp of baptism of desire heretics.