Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 09, 2021, 12:02:39 PM
-
As started on another thread, I believe this deserves one of its own.
We know that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. I agree that this does not exclude Baptism of Desire per se, since the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary (a sine qua non) for Baptism of Desire.
In order to avoid heresy, we must maintain that the Sacrament of Baptism operates through the votum, as the instrumental cause of justification.
How can the Sacrament of Baptism "work" on the Hindu in Tibet?
How, moreover, can it "work" its effects on an unbaptized Christian who doesn't even believe in Baptism?
What is this magical force of Baptism that somehow works without even the subject's knowledge to justify souls?
This is the theory of "αnσnymσus Baptism," where someone receives Baptism in voto without their even knowing about Baptism.
Please explain the metaphysics of how Baptism operates on souls. This reminds me of the scientific debate about gravity, where scientists have absolutely no idea how gravity can "act at a distance". How can Baptism "act" on souls at a distance, even when the soul doesn't know about it or believe in it?
-
To claim that the subjective dispositions of the recipient effect the justification, rather than the Sacrament itself, is Pelagian heresy.
To say that BoD is an ex opere operantis phenomenon is in fact Pelagianism.
PS -- THAT is why St. Augustine forcefully rejected BoD after battling with the Pelagians.
-
So how does the Sacrament effect justification ex opere operato in anyone who doesn't believe in the Sacrament?
How, for that matter, does it effect justification even in someone who DOES believe in it?
-
Ludwig Ott: "Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis."
This basically means that recipients of BoD effect their own justification. Pelagianism. St. Augustine realized this.
-
It's funny that with a "defined dogma" like Baptism of Desire that there's no answer for how it works and what the conditions for it are, whether faith in the Sacrament is required or whether the Sacrament can reach through space and time and somehow magically wash those Hindus in Tibet of their sins.
-
Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD? Heck no! A BOD is guaranteed to work "even though he has never even heard of the existence of the Sacrament of Baptism" - as the scan from this catechism teaches, see item (4).
-
How does BOD give grace to a pagan/hindu/moslem/protestant who HATES catholicism (and has no desire to obey the pope), but only "desires God"? This is where the "rewarder God" heresy pits Catholicism vs God, which is an abominable error.
-
How does BOD give grace to a pagan/hindu/moslem/protestant who HATES catholicism (and has no desire to obey the pope), but only "desires God"? This is where the "rewarder God" heresy pits Catholicism vs God, which is an abominable error.
I mean, I'm guessing Lefebvre had in mind Hindus/Muslims/Prots who had never heard of Catholicism or, at most, had heard some grotesque mischaracterization of it. I seriously doubt he or any other trad believes that anyone who understands Catholicism and still rejects it has any hope of salvation via "sincerity".
-
How does BOD give grace to a pagan/hindu/moslem/protestant who HATES catholicism (and has no desire to obey the pope), but only "desires God"? This is where the "rewarder God" heresy pits Catholicism vs God, which is an abominable error.
Yes, even Xavier cited a source which stated that those who despise the Sacrament cannot receive BoD. But many if not most BoDers would not exclude even these from the possibility of receiving BoD.
But what about those who simply don't have faith in it?
I'm asking for a BoDer to explain the metaphysical operation of a Sacrament through space and time to act on someone who's not even aware of its existence and doesn't believe in it.
It's very much akin to Rahner's "αnσnymσus Christian" theory.
-
Yes, even Xavier cited a source which stated that those who despise the Sacrament cannot receive BoD. But many if not most BoDers would not exclude even these from the possibility of receiving BoD.
But what about those who simply don't have faith in it?
I'm asking for a BoDer to explain the metaphysical operation of a Sacrament through space and time to act on someone who's not even aware of its existence and doesn't believe in it.
It's very much akin to Rahner's "αnσnymσus Christian" theory.
Yes indeed. We are all imbued with the supernatural existential, that uncreated grace that apparently draws us closer to God.
Everything needed for man to attain Heaven has been fulfilled through the Incarnation. For Rahner, the Passion, Death and Resurrection become nothing more than an aferthought.
What Rahner was trying to take the IDEA of a saviour, one who significant for salvation, and marry it with the concrete person who is Jesus Christ as revealed through Holy Writ and Tradition. He failed. Rahner's Christ is not THE CHRIST, when you get down to the dirty nitty gritty details.
We are all saved, whether we want to be or not, because God has irresistably willed it to be. There is no saying NO to God's grace in Rahner's thought.
I call this "damned to salvation."
-
I'm guessing Lefebvre had in mind Hindus/Muslims/Prots who had never heard of Catholicism or, at most, had heard some grotesque mischaracterization of it.
Ok, but Trent, St Thomas, St Augustine and St Alphonsus all agree that BOD would not apply to these. You have to 1) know what baptism is, and 2) properly desire it (and by extension, the whole catholic church).
-
(https://orangefreesounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cricket_Sounds_Preview.jpg)
So no one knows ... what BoD is and how it works? That's rather unusual for a defined dogma.
I'm sure that Baptism is right now saving some Hindu in Tibet, who will shortly be entering the Beatific Vision.
-
If the answer to the OP is no because the desire to be baptized is only implicit then consider how cruel God is. What recourse does the implicitly justified Tibetan have toward helping his fellows? How does the Tibetan pass on to his children the necessities for salvation when he doesn't even know that he is damned? What consoles him as he digs his dying infant's grave?
Questions like these pop up in this "vortex of confusion" created in this debate.
-
The use of the word “implicit” is grossly wrong. When modernist heretics use the phrase “implicit faith”, they go on to describe a situation where an ignorant person doesn’t know something about the Church. But something that is implicit is 100% understood (just not openly expressed). This is why St Alphonsus’ use of implicit faith is orthodox. He was speaking of a catechumen who was learning the faith but who just hadn’t formally asked to be baptized. But such a one a) knew exactly what baptism was, b) knew what it meant to be a member of the Church, and c) by their actions in learning and asking questions of the Faith, was passively implying they wanted to join the Faith. In other words, their actions were speaking in place of their words.
.
That’s what implied means. A “100% understanding” is part of the meaning of the word.
.
What modernist heretics have done is apply V2’s “subsists in” theological error of Christianity to baptismal faith. In the former, they have erroneously made belief in any type of Christianity salvific. In the latter, they have erroneously made desire for any type of “god” or “truth” a baptism. Both of these errors are necessary for the freemasonic one-world Church to be born.
-
If the answer to the OP is no because the desire to be baptized is only implicit then consider how cruel God is. What recourse does the implicitly justified Tibetan have toward helping his fellows? How does the Tibetan pass on to his children the necessities for salvation when he doesn't even know that he is damned? What consoles him as he digs his dying infant's grave?
Questions like these pop up in this "vortex of confusion" created in this debate.
Why would you think that God is mean if He doesn't wait the amount of time you think He needs to wait for someone? Or do you think God has to break his own rules in order to save people? Circuмstances cannot possibly impede God from getting someone true baptism if they want it. It certainly isn't harder for God to provide baptism than baptism of desire. If a person wants baptism and tries to get there, they get it. If someone dies without it, God knew what He was doing and no one can say He is unmerciful.
-
How does the Tibetan pass on to his children the necessities for salvation when he doesn't even know that he is damned?
Why do many if you heretically think that these Hindus/pagans/etc are guiltless in their ignorance about the Church? I’ve heard multiple conversion stories where Muslims wanted to know why Christians worshipped Christ, and He appeared to them physically or in a dream and answered their questions. Then He sent them to a Christian for further instruction.
.
These miracles are happening in the Middle East as we speak! In our times! And these Muslims have google and books and tv to learn about Christ. Yet...He still performs miracles for those that want the Truth, even if they could get the Truth naturally.
.
So, in days where technology didn’t exist, when ignorant natives were on islands, or in forests, or near remote mountains, and no living Christian was within thousands of miles, we wonder how God can reach these people? Really?
.
Those that invent “BOD for the ignorant” or “rewarder God” heresy, have such a low amount of Faith in God, and His goodness, His mercy, His love of each one of us, that I question if they were ever really Catholic. ...It’s borderline blasphemy.
-
Those that invent “BOD for the ignorant” or “rewarder God” heresy, have such a low amount of Faith in God, and His goodness, His mercy, His love of each one of us, that I question if they were ever really Catholic. ...It’s borderline blasphemy.
This is also what I believe - a huge lack of faith in the Providence of God.
Who can imagine Him, Who created light on the first day, but did not create the source of the light till the fourth day, is subject to unforeseen circuмstances - for our convenience.
It's one thing to toss around the idea of a BOD as being something possibly legitimate, but it's a whole nother thing to preach it as if it is a doctrine of the Church. I think the idea itself displeases God very much, not so much because of what it is, but because inherent in the idea is that Almighty God is handcuffed by "unforeseen circuмstances" from Providing that which He, in no uncertain terms, personally instituted as being necessary for salvation.
-
This is also what I believe - a huge lack of faith in the Providence of God.
Who can imagine Him, Who created light on the first day, but did not create the source of the light till the fourth day, is subject to unforeseen circuмstances - for our convenience.
Absolutely. There are many implied heretical premises in the motivations of BoDers. I love how they attack "Feeneyites" because we would "constrain" God by the Sacraments, and yet they believe God to be constrained by "impossibility" and "unforeseen circuмstances" (as if anything can be unforeseen to God). So, God must somehow bend in order to accommodate all these circuмstances that He somehow can't control.
Saying that God ALWAYS works salvation through the Sacrament of Baptism is not to constrain Him. HE chose to do it that way, and revealed that to us. Of course, He COULD do it some other way ... but He chose to do it this way.
And the other dark underbelly of BoD is this notion of: "How could a merciful God do [such and such]?" ... the same sentiment that has caused so many to lose their faith when faced with some tragedies in life. How could a merciful God allow someone who had "no chance" at Baptism to go to hell? Well, how could a merciful God send anyone to hell at all; why doesn't He only create those Whom He foresees will go to heaven? Where does that stop, eh? Father Cekada at least honestly admitted his chief theological premise for BoD: "I can't believe that a good and merciful God would allow ...." Of course, that means salvation for infidels, and therefore a rejection of something that all Catholics taught and believed for 1500 years ... despite the assertion of Cekadism that universal consensus of theologians is infallible. For 1500 years, it was infallibly true that explicit faith was necessary for salvation. Then, in about the year 1500, it ceased to be true, and in fact now the OPPOSITE (for him) is infallibly true. What utter garbage, Fr. Cekada ... and the contradiction come from a confirmation bias expressed in his emotional sentiment that God can't allow all those people to have been lost. I trust that he has been enlightened now about his error.
-
Of course, my previous post got a downthumb, from someone in denial about their true motivations for being a BoD zealot.
I think that's here I draw the line. If someone happens to believe in BoD, and just mentions it in passing, but their emphasis is on the necessity of Baptism, then I'm fine with that. But the "zealots" (that's a good term) usually have an agenda other than merely promoting "truth." Lover of Heresy admitted his; it was due to bitterness over "almost" having become a "Feeneyite".
-
This is also what I believe - a huge lack of faith in the Providence of God.
Who can imagine Him, Who created light on the first day, but did not create the source of the light till the fourth day, is subject to unforeseen circuмstances - for our convenience.
It's one thing to toss around the idea of a BOD as being something possibly legitimate, but it's a whole nother thing to preach it as if it is a doctrine of the Church. I think the idea itself displeases God very much, not so much because of what it is, but because inherent in the idea is that Almighty God is handcuffed by "unforeseen circuмstances" from Providing that which He, in no uncertain terms, personally instituted as being necessary for salvation.
I agree with this. It's like with my mother. I pray daily that she get baptized before her death. I believe that if she desires it, He will give that opportunity. Most likely me.
-
I agree with this. It's like with my mother. I pray daily that she get baptized before her death. I believe that if she desires it, He will give that opportunity. Most likely me.
I'll pray that she converts, and it's most likely that you'll be around to baptize her.
-
Why would you think that God is mean if He doesn't wait the amount of time you think He needs to wait for someone? Or do you think God has to break his own rules in order to save people? Circuмstances cannot possibly impede God from getting someone true baptism if they want it. It certainly isn't harder for God to provide baptism than baptism of desire. If a person wants baptism and tries to get there, they get it. If someone dies without it, God knew what He was doing and no one can say He is unmerciful.
My attempt was to show the absurdity of the implicit desire type of BOD by demonstrating one of its many flaws. I am asking rhetorically, why can the Tibetan save himself but not assist even his own children? I don't think God is mean, proponents of heretical BOD do.
-
Why do many if you heretically think that these Hindus/pagans/etc are guiltless in their ignorance about the Church? I’ve heard multiple conversion stories where Muslims wanted to know why Christians worshipped Christ, and He appeared to them physically or in a dream and answered their questions. Then He sent them to a Christian for further instruction.
.
These miracles are happening in the Middle East as we speak! In our times! And these Muslims have google and books and tv to learn about Christ. Yet...He still performs miracles for those that want the Truth, even if they could get the Truth naturally.
.
So, in days where technology didn’t exist, when ignorant natives were on islands, or in forests, or near remote mountains, and no living Christian was within thousands of miles, we wonder how God can reach these people? Really?
.
Those that invent “BOD for the ignorant” or “rewarder God” heresy, have such a low amount of Faith in God, and His goodness, His mercy, His love of each one of us, that I question if they were ever really Catholic. ...It’s borderline blasphemy.
I'm kinda confused. Do you think I was supporting implicit BOD? My questions were rhetorical, I hope people try to answer them and arrive at the only conclusion possible; the absurdity of the implicit BOD position.
-
I'm kinda confused. Do you think I was supporting implicit BOD? My questions were rhetorical, I hope people try to answer them and arrive at the only conclusion possible; the absurdity of the implicit BOD position.
Yes, sorry. I didn't recognize your sarcasm. You made good points.
-
I try to stay away from BOD/BOB not because I don't believe this teaching or doubt it, it makes perfect sense to me. It does not make sense to deny it.
Without using all the theological terms, my understanding is explained in this little story I made up.
+++
Oh, Dear, exclaimed St. Peter at the gate, one day!
What is the matter? His angel spoke.
Those evils souls are at it again, killing those who seek the Truth.
See, those two coming were the latest; they were getting ready for baptism, but that one on the left was having doubts, do I or don't I want to live this way? He was not convinced (a doubter). He was what we call a convert that is thinking ( well maybe they're right and just in case I'll try) not wanting to take a chance my eternity. A healthy fear in other words.
From the beginning of their journey, his friend the Believer talked/walked with God. Prayed daily for all his family and friends. Never neglecting
Our Lady, teaching and praying the rosary while loving especially the Sorrowful mysteries. Finally, the day has come for the two of them to be Baptised, according to the priest.
Now, this! The persecutors are sneaking up right behind them and
with evil intent. The weaker of the two, having just received the pouring of water while at the same time hearing the saving words; suddenly — like that both were killed instantly by God's enemies! Killed before the Believer had a chance for the water.
St. Peter says to his angel, strange that some below think the Believer should go to hell. (or am I wrong here) St.Peter continues ... They fail to realize that the sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar, being Christ's own actions, must be held to be capable in themselves of conveying and dispensing grace from the divine Head to the members of the Mystical Body.
Now, all that talk about the infidels is another situation! And/Or souls that know what they must do, but keep putting it on the back burner. Banking on desire only! Only God can judge them according to His opportunities He gave them for Truth. We can in turn continue to pray for the infidels and our loved ones for more time.
Anyway that is my take on the subject. I also believe that all this twisting of words saying he meant this or that is meaningless since none of you know what was in the mind of whoever used words such as "or" or "and" ...
-
I try to stay away from BOD/BOB not because I don't believe this teaching or doubt it, it makes perfect sense to me. It does not make sense to deny it.
Without using all the theological terms, my understanding is explained in this little story I made up.
+++
Oh, Dear, exclaimed St. Peter at the gate, one day!
What is the matter? His angel spoke.
Those evils souls are at it again, killing those who seek the Truth.
See, those two coming were the latest; they were getting ready for baptism, but that one on the left was having doubts, do I or don't I want to live this way? He was not convinced (a doubter). He was what we call a convert that is thinking ( well maybe they're right and just in case I'll try) not wanting to take a chance my eternity. A healthy fear in other words.
From the beginning of their journey, his friend the Believer talked/walked with God. Prayed daily for all his family and friends. Never neglecting
Our Lady, teaching and praying the rosary while loving especially the Sorrowful mysteries. Finally, the day has come for the two of them to be Baptised, according to the priest.
Now, this! The persecutors are sneaking up right behind them and
with evil intent. The weaker of the two, having just received the pouring of water while at the same time hearing the saving words; suddenly — like that both were killed instantly by God's enemies! Killed before the Believer had a chance for the water.
St. Peter says to his angel, strange that some below think the Believer should go to hell. (or am I wrong here) St.Peter continues ... They fail to realize that the sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar, being Christ's own actions, must be held to be capable in themselves of conveying and dispensing grace from the divine Head to the members of the Mystical Body.
Now, all that talk about the infidels is another situation! And/Or souls that know what they must do, but keep putting it on the back burner. Banking on desire only! Only God can judge them according to His opportunities He gave them for Truth. We can in turn continue to pray for the infidels and our loved ones for more time.
Anyway that is my take on the subject. I also believe that all this twisting of words saying he meant this or that is meaningless since none of you know what was in the mind of whoever used words such as "or" or "and" ...
Poor Myrna. I had hopes for you. But after all these years of good theological debate on this subject you are still doing imaginary "theology" with your made-up story. Yes. It is best you stay away from this topic, as you say.
-
Thanks for the wasted cricket words that just made noise, you could have at least answered who was saved in my made up story, who was not saved, your opinion would have been nice or did I confuse you with simplicity?
-
St. Peter says to his angel, strange that some below think the Believer should go to hell. (or am I wrong here) St.Peter continues ... They fail to realize that the sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar, being Christ's own actions, must be held to be capable in themselves of conveying and dispensing grace from the divine Head to the members of the Mystical Body.
In your make-believe fantasy, the "believer" wasn't really a believer, because they didn't go through with it. Had they cooperated with actual grace (which God always sufficiently provides) then their human doubts would've been put aside. But some part of their soul rejected the actual graces, and this is why they didn't get baptized.
.
There is no contradiction. Those that cooperate with grace, however weak their human nature is, will not be conquered. A true believer will cooperate with grace. Your example denies the power of grace. Your example ignores free will. Your example is anti-catholic.
-
In your make-believe fantasy, the "believer" wasn't really a believer, because they didn't go through with it. Had they cooperated with actual grace (which God always sufficiently provides) then their human doubts would've been put aside. But some part of their soul rejected the actual graces, and this is why they didn't get baptized.
.
There is no contradiction. Those that cooperate with grace, however weak their human nature is, will not be conquered. A true believer will cooperate with grace. Your example denies the power of grace. Your example ignores free will. Your example is anti-catholic.
My make-believe story; you either misread or wanted to misread! The story clearly speaks of two learning the faith. One received the Sacrament, the other only the desire through no fault of his own was killed before the Sacrament was administered. Who was saved Pax Vobis, pick one: Both or only the one who received the Sacrament or none?
This story illustrates how the Church teaches BOD. The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament, as if it could even apply if death is not carried out.
-
My make-believe story; you either misread or wanted to misread! The story clearly speaks of two learning the faith. One received the Sacrament, the other only the desire through no fault of his own was killed before the Sacrament was administered. Who was saved Pax Vobis, pick one: Both or only the one who received the Sacrament or none?
This story illustrates how the Church teaches BOD. The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament, as if it could even apply if death is not carried out.
Yes, through no fault of his own, but where is God in your fantasy?
Can you please explain Myrna, why God, after giving the believer all the grace and knowledge necessary in order to lead him right to the very font that God Himself instituted as being required for our salvation, denied the believer this requirement and did not wait another 2 minutes before taking the believer? In your story, God is either a monster, or has no say and no place whatsoever in the matter.
Your fantasy's only possibility to supply salvation is when the Divine Providence is altogether removed from the scenario - because with it, a BOD can never happen, just as without it, the sacrament can never happen.
-
My make-believe story; you either misread or wanted to misread! The story clearly speaks of two learning the faith. One received the Sacrament, the other only the desire through no fault of his own was killed before the Sacrament was administered. Who was saved Pax Vobis, pick one: Both or only the one who received the Sacrament or none?
This story illustrates how the Church teaches BOD. The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament, as if it could even apply if death is not carried out.
Myrna, I think you are focusing on the catechumen which St Bellarmine said would fall under BOD. I think it is clear that catechumens are in a different category for sure.
-
Myrna, I think you are focusing on the catechumen which St Bellarmine said would fall under BOD. I think it is clear that catechumens are in a different category for sure.
As I said, the big issue vis-a-vis ecclesiology is NOT the catechumen. You can argue that they're part of the Visible Church "imperfectly", as St. Robert Bellarmine believed, and that an imperfect membership suffices for salvation. Again, I don't believe that, but it someone else wanted to, I'd have no big issue. Where I get off the BoD wagon is where Hindus in Tibet, or Great Thumb Worshippers, who have ZERO connection to the Visible Church are somehow saved.
That's where the whole Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology comes from, where the Church "subsists" in this visible core of actual Catholics, but then extends out invisibly to include all manner of heretics, schismatics, Buddhists, and Muslims.
I'm actually willing to lay down the hatchet with regard to Catechumens as a compromise, if only some of these Traditional Catholics who believe in BoD would exclude the non-catechumens. Perhaps that would be more palatable to those who want to follow a St. Thomas or St Robert Bellarmine, or who believe that Trent taught BoD. I urge them to look at all the proofs that they normally adduce for BoD and notice:
1917 Code of Canon Law: limited to CATECHUMENS
Pope Pius XII General Audience: limited to CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine: limited to CATECHUMENS
Pope Innocent II and II cases: involved (basically) at least CATECHUMENS (with one perplexing case involving a "priest" who had not been baptized somehow)
Patristic evidence:
. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.
So I'd be willing to take up a compromise position of conceding the possibility of salvation for Catechumens, so that we can stop arguing incessantly about BoD and focus on the real problem, the heretical ecclesiology that results from including all manner of non-Catholics in the Church.
Our REAL battle here needs to be against the Vatican II ecclesiology and the wreckage it's causing, and BoD has been distraction from that. So if we could all agree on a BoD, or, rather, Baptism of "firm resolution" (since "desire" is a very unhelpful term), then we could join forces against the V2 ecclesiology and fight the REAL BATTLE going on here. I don't need to keep fighting with St. Thomas or St. Robert or St. Alphonsus. Once we've re-established firmly the Tridentine VISIBLE CHURCH ecclesiology, then we can revisit BoD for Catechumens at a later date.
I ask all Traditional Catholics to join forces in battling the FUNDAMENTAL ERROR behind all of the Vatican II errors.
-
Yes, through no fault of his own, but where is God in your fantasy?
Can you please explain Myrna, why God, after giving the believer all the grace and knowledge necessary in order to lead him right to the very font that God Himself instituted as being required for our salvation, denied the believer this requirement and did not wait another 2 minutes before taking the believer? In your story, God is either a monster, or has no say and no place whatsoever in the matter.
Your fantasy's only possibility to supply salvation is when the Divine Providence is altogether removed from the scenario - because with it, a BOD can never happen, just as without it, the sacrament can never happen.
READ
my "fantasy" and pick which one or both or none are saved, Stubborn. Without Baptism of desire as you prefer, is calling God a monster if this scene actually was. See here what CMRIa says about BOD/BOB
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jҽωs, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immєdιαtely, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
BAPTISM of Desire (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/)
-
Who here argues that any person who hates Catholicism
receives BOD, and thinks nothing else is necessary is saved? Is that even possible to receive BOD without even desiring to be a member of the Church founded by Christ???
Catholics should know that the Catholic Chuch IS CHRIST! If one loves Christ they love His Church. Christ is the Church there is no other.
Seek and you shall find.
Nice to see Ladislaus you are softening toward the PROPER Definition of BOD.
-
READ
my "fantasy" and pick which one or both or none are saved, Stubborn. Without Baptism of desire as you prefer, is calling God a monster if this scene actually was. See here what CMRIa says about BOD/BOB
God provided the one with the sacrament a microsecond before death, so I would say that he is the only one who was able to attain salvation. BOB and a BOD are essentially the same thing since the BOB guy necessarily desires baptism, but as far as we know, dies without it.
Now in your own words, can you please explain Myrna, why God, after giving the believer all the grace and knowledge necessary in order to lead him right to the very font that God Himself instituted as being required for our salvation, denied the believer this requirement and did not wait another 2 minutes before taking the believer?
If you are incapable of answering in your own words, simply say so.
Your story is a shining example, explicitly demonstrating two things at the same time, first, how *with* Divine Providence a BOD can never happen, (by the providence of God the doubter was baptized), and second, *without* God's Providence, the sacrament can never happen (as was the case of the believer).
-
Nice to see Ladislaus you are softening toward the PROPER Definition of BOD.
I've always been soft of those who simply believe in BoD for catechumens and are not BoD zealots, as I have explained. Of course, so far I've only run into about 2-3 of these. I have always tried to shift the debate toward whether or not "Hindus in Tibet" and such can be saved and therefore in the Church. I welcomed a poster named Arvinger as an ally on this issue even though he believed in BoD for catechumens ... since he always fought to uphold Traditional ecclesiology, rather than undermining it at every turn.
As I told him, if you want to follow the Church Doctors on this issue, then what can I say? Even if I respectfully disagree with them, I can't really fault someone in preferring the opinions of St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus.
-
My make-believe story; you either misread or wanted to misread! The story clearly speaks of two learning the faith. One received the Sacrament,
Great. The first person used his free will to accept the actual graces necessary to embrace the Faith and Baptism.
.
the other only the desire through no fault of his own was killed before the Sacrament was administered.
Ha, ha. Except for ѕυιcιdє and stupidity (i.e. taking a selfie on the edge of a cliff, slipping and falling to one's death accidentally), everyone dies "through no fault of his own".
.
Who allowed person #2 to die before reception of Baptism? God.
Who knew, from all eternity, when person #2 was going to die? God.
Who is the only person who can read hearts, and who truly knows if person #2 desired to be baptized? God.
Can you, me or anyone swear on a bible and say we knew, with 100% clarity, that person #2 wanted to be baptized? No.
Therefore, who stopped person #2's life, being able to read his heart, and did so with full, complete, absolute knowledge? God.
.
Are you questioning God's motives and knowledge? Yes.
Should you repent of this sin? Yes.
Should you beg for a greater faith in God's all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Providential care and His all-encompassing desire that all men be saved? Yes x 1,000,000.
.
Who was saved Pax Vobis, pick one: Both or only the one who received the Sacrament or none?
Who was saved? I have no idea. I can't read hearts. All I know is who was baptized at the time of death. Person 1 was baptized, so they had the opportunity to be saved. Person 2 was not baptized, so they were definitely not saved. They could have made it to Limbo and had a natural happiness. Or, they were damned for privately rejecting baptism; only God knows.
.
Who was a member of the Church when they died? Person 1 only.
.
This story illustrates how the Church teaches BOD. The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament, as if it could even apply if death is not carried out.
This story illustrates your own, silly, theological fantasy. There is no catechism, book, council, papal docuмent or manual which explains the answer to your story. If you presented your story to 100 other pro-BOD friends, you would get 100 different answers because nothing about BOD details are explained anywhere. So there's no uniform agreement on what it is, or how it works. If there was, then you wouldn't have to make up a story; you could just quote pages from a church-approved book.
-
I welcomed a poster named Arvinger as an ally on this issue even though he believed in BoD for catechumens ... since he always fought to uphold Traditional ecclesiology, rather than undermining it at every turn.
In all of my life I only have met one like your Arvinger. AND I have never met ONE that started a BOD thread that was not an implicit faither, no matter how many times they denied it. Their mindset is that of Fr. Cekada (read below), and because of that mindset, BOD of the catechumen is not enough because it only involves, well, a catechumen, that's nothing, they must include all "nice" people in all religions. There is not ONE real Thomist/ Ligouri/Bellarmie BODer on CI that posts in these threads. An example of a false BODer is XavierSem, who has been whittled down to saying that God can convert a Muslim, Hindu Buddhist etc. by a miracle, by revealing Himself to the non-Catholic one microsecond before he dies. That is XavierSem's way of saving the non-catechumen, he's just winging it, it has nothing to do with St. Thomas or any saint.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
-
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Does anyone have access to the original source for this quote? I see it copied and pasted a lot but I've never seen the original source. I tried googling for it, but came up emptyhanded (except for other places where the quote is provided by itself).
-
Now in your own words, can you please explain Myrna, why God, after giving the believer all the grace and knowledge necessary in order to lead him right to the very font that God Himself instituted as being required for our salvation, denied the believer this requirement and did not wait another 2 minutes before taking the believer?
Your story is a shining example, explicitly demonstrating two things at the same time, first, how *with* Divine Providence a BOD can never happen, (by the providence of God the doubter was baptized), and second, *without* God's Providence, the sacrament can never happen (as was the case of the believer).
It wasn't necessary because God knew the Believer would be saved via BOD anyway, and also God wanted you Stubborn to think about the situation presented, which is what you did!
-
Who allowed person #2 to die before reception of Baptism? God.
Who knew, from all eternity, when person #2 was going to die? God.
Who is the only person who can read hearts, and who truly knows if person #2 desired to be baptized? God.
Can you, me or anyone swear on a bible and say we knew, with 100% clarity, that person #2 wanted to be baptized? No.
Therefore, who stopped person #2's life, being able to read his heart, and did so with full, complete, absolute knowledge? God.
.
Are you questioning God's motives and knowledge? Yes.
Should you repent of this sin? Yes.
Should you beg for a greater faith in God's all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Providential care and His all-encompassing desire that all men be saved? Yes x 1,000,000.
.
Who was saved? I have no idea. I can't read hearts. All I know is who was baptized at the time of death. Person 1 was baptized, so they had the opportunity to be saved. Person 2 was not baptized, so they were definitely not saved. They could have made it to Limbo and had a natural happiness. Or, they were damned for privately rejecting baptism; only God knows.
.
You just said, "You have no idea, so why go back on your word and say "Person 2 was not baptized, so they were definitely not saved.
My point in my post a while ago, titled: In God's Eyes! That post of mine holds the answer to your other who questions above
In God's Eyes (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/god's-eyes/)
-
It wasn't necessary because God knew the Believer would be saved via BOD anyway, and also God wanted you Stubborn to think about the situation presented, which is what you did!
I thought - poor Myrna, she still doesn't get it.
-
You just said, "You have no idea, so why go back on your word and say "Person 2 was not baptized, so they were definitely not saved.
Person 1 had the chance to salvation because they were saved. Can I say they were DEFINITELY saved, just because they were baptized? No. They could have been baptized, sinned mentally and been lost. Only God knows (of the baptized) who is saved.
.
All I can say is who IS NOT SAVED, which is person #2. I know they aren't saved because of church doctrine.
-
Myrna said: ...the Believer would be saved via BOD
.
Myrna also said: The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament..
.
.
Vortex of confusion, indeed!!
-
Does anyone have access to the original source for this quote? I see it copied and pasted a lot but I've never seen the original source. I tried googling for it, but came up emptyhanded (except for other places where the quote is provided by itself).
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
This article/quote is reproduced on MHFM:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic/heretical-traditional-priests-sspv-salvation/#.YE01LJ1KiK8
So, this article/specific quote (from The Roman Catholic, SSPV, Fall 2003 issue) was apparently written by Fr Fenton, not Fr Cekada. In addition, Fr Cekada left the SSPV in 1989, so he couldn't have possibly written this article for the SSPV in 2003. I knew something was off about this accusation.
Granted, I am sure that some would still disagree with Fr Cekada's true position on BOD, but he NEVER said/wrote what has been attributed to him.
It's time to set the record straight.
-
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
This article/quote is reproduced on MHFM:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic/heretical-traditional-priests-sspv-salvation/#.YE01LJ1KiK8
So, this article/specific quote (from The Roman Catholic, SSPV, Fall 2003 issue) was apparently written by Fr Fenton, not Fr Cekada. In addition, Fr Cekada left the SSPV in 1989, so he couldn't have possibly written this article for the SSPV in 2003. I knew something was off about this accusation.
Granted, I am sure that some would still disagree with Fr Cekada's true position on BOD, but he NEVER said/wrote what has been attributed to him.
It's time to set the record straight.
It's not even Fr Fenton. My apologies. The author is someone named Francis Fenton.
-
It's not even Fr Fenton. My apologies. The author is someone named Francis Fenton.
There was a Father Francis Fenton who founded, in the early days of the "resistance", the ORCM (Orthodox Roman Cath. Movement). Lived in Connecticut, Monroe CT, I think. Bishop McKenna took over his chapel at Father's death.
-
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
This article/quote is reproduced on MHFM:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic/heretical-traditional-priests-sspv-salvation/#.YE01LJ1KiK8
So, this article/specific quote (from The Roman Catholic, SSPV, Fall 2003 issue) was apparently written by Fr Fenton, not Fr Cekada. In addition, Fr Cekada left the SSPV in 1989, so he couldn't have possibly written this article for the SSPV in 2003. I knew something was off about this accusation.
Granted, I am sure that some would still disagree with Fr Cekada's true position on BOD, but he NEVER said/wrote what has been attributed to him.
It's time to set the record straight.
If it was not Fr. Cekada, he had at least 10 years to refute it. And even if he left the SSPV, they could still publish his quote, same as the SSPX still quotes Bp. Williamson. Nevertheless, the quote was in the SSPV publication, AND in my 25 years of experience with BODers, it perfectly describes, honestly decribes, admits, the position of 99% of BODers.
-
2Vermont, it doesn't matter who said it (i.e. Fr Cekada), what matters is the truth. You are defending the person, while ignoring the error...a common female attribute.
-
There is no proof that Fr. Cekada made that comment and if you were MEN of good will you would retract it. If truth is what matters, then it should matter who said it since it is a lie to ascribe it to someone who didn't say it.
I made it clear that people would still disagree with his views on BOD, so no I wasn't even agreeing with his position. In fact if anyone has been following my comments on this topic you would know that I lean towards more of a catechumen BOD.
But that particular quote he did not say. Even the Dimond Brothers don't ascribe it to him! Nowhere do I see any reference to him saying it other than in Last Tradhican's posts (and those who clearly wish to believe it).
-
If it was not Fr. Cekada, he had at least 10 years to refute it. And even if he left the SSPV, they could still publish his quote, same as the SSPX still quotes Bp. Williamson. Nevertheless, the quote was in the SSPV publication, AND in my 25 years of experience with BODers, it perfectly describes, honestly decribes, admits, the position of 99% of BODers.
Except the Dimond Brothers don't even ascribe it to him. Why did you change it to Fr Cekada?
-
There is no proof that Fr. Cekada made that comment
This entire thread is not anti-Cekada, as you falsely make it out to be. We are attacking false principles, no matter who said them.
.
If it makes you *feel* better, then replace "Fr Cekada" with "Fr Smith". The arguments don't change.
-
There was a Father Francis Fenton who founded, in the early days of the "resistance", the ORCM (Orthodox Roman Cath. Movement). Lived in Connecticut, Monroe CT, I think. Bishop McKenna took over his chapel at Father's death.
I can't seem to find that he was associated with the SSPV.
-
I can't seem to find that he was associated with the SSPV.
Doesn't matter. You are (womanly) defending an organization (SSPV), while ignoring principles.
.
Put aside who said what (if you are femininely able to) and concentrate on the errors which remain. It doesn't matter what priest said what. It matters what is error and what is not.
-
This entire thread is not anti-Cekada, as you falsely make it out to be. We are attacking false principles, no matter who said them.
.
If it makes you *feel* better, then replace "Fr Cekada" with "Fr Smith". The arguments don't change.
Yet another lie. I've been involved in a number of threads on this topic so I wasn't making the whole thread out to be anti Cekada. I was pretty clear about a specific post.
-
Doesn't matter. You are (womanly) defending an organization (SSPV), while ignoring principles.
.
Put aside who said what (if you are femininely able to) and concentrate on the errors which remain. It doesn't matter what priest said what. It matters what is error and what is not.
Lol...more lies.
-
If it was not Fr. Cekada, he had at least 10 years to refute it. And even if he left the SSPV, they could still publish his quote, same as the SSPX still quotes Bp. Williamson. Nevertheless, the quote was in the SSPV publication, AND in my 25 years of experience with BODers, it perfectly describes, honestly decribes, admits, the position of 99% of BODers.
Why would Fr. Cekada "refute" a statement in an article ascribed to a "Fenton"?
2Vermont is right: this "oh well" response to a false attribution that is paraded around here as a target for contempt as an example of heretical or quasi-heretical laxity regarding EENS is pathetic.
-
Lol...more lies.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss heresy, not Fr Cekada, which you put up as a strawman, and are now defending. No one is attacking Fr Cekada; we are attacking error.
-
Why would Fr. Cekada "refute" a statement in an article ascribed to a "Fenton"?
2Vermont is right: this "oh well" response to a false attribution that is paraded around here as a target for contempt as an example of heretical or quasi-heretical laxity regarding EENS is pathetic.
Thank you DR. Have a blessed Sunday!
-
The purpose of this thread is to discuss heresy, not Fr Cekada, which you put up as a strawman, and are now defending. No one is attacking Fr Cekada; we are attacking error.
Then it should be no problem to retract the false attribution. But, for some reason, it is.
-
Then it should be no problem to retract the false attribution. But, for some reason, it is.
There’s no one who isn’t retracting it. We all retract it. Future citations will be to “an article published by the SSPV”, just as we cite “an article published by the CMRI” entitled “The Salvation of those Outside the Church” — which I did look up. This is a case of a poster attributing it incorrectly and people repeating it without looking it up. There was no malice here. It’s even possible that Fr. Cekada quoted it in some other context that we can’t find, causing the original poster to believe it was his own. Not sure how the mistake was made, but I doubt it was done on purpose. Very few of us have the time to look up every single quote. There are probably a dozen or more fake “sayings of Padre Pio” on the web that live on for the same reason.
When people cite it, it’s to demonstrate an IDEA that we contend is actually behind WHY most people end up being BoD zealots. When you scratch beneath the surface, you almost always find that this sentiment is actually what drives it. It’s to your credit that you’re honestly looking at this issue despite the fact that an implicit BoD would comfort you regarding your mother. In this quote we have someone finally admitting this motivation honestly, which is why we keep referring to it.
-
For hundreds of years we had Catholic theologians and even one Pope falsely claiming St. Augustine as their authority for BoD whereas he clearly retracted his position ... as admitted even by Karl “αnσnymσus Christian” Rahner. And this has been repeatedly demonstrated, but the BoDers will not retract citing Augustine as “proof” for BoD.
Lots of BoDers keep falsely keep claiming that the Church Fathers unanimously endorsed BoD when almost the opposite is true. Fr. Laisney famously used ellipses to change the import of several quotes. If there’s deliberate dishonesty here, it’s on the BoD side. This was likely just a mistake, and those of us who perpetuated it retract it.
-
Thank you DR. Have a blessed Sunday!
And blessings to you, 2 Vermont.
-
For hundreds of years we had Catholic theologians and even one Pope falsely claiming St. Augustine as their authority for BoD whereas he clearly retracted his position ... as admitted even by Karl “αnσnymσus Christian” Rahner. And this has been repeatedly demonstrated, but the BoDers will not retract citing Augustine as “proof” for BoD.
Well, I believe St. Thomas did cite St. Augustine as supporting BOD. That's pretty good company, and I think clears others who do so of any bad will in that regard - they likely simply rely upon St. Thomas.
That being said, the "retraction" speaks volumes.
It would be a good idea to post the retraction here. If it's not handy to anyone, I'll look it up and post it if I find it.
-
Lots of BoDers keep falsely keep claiming that the Church Fathers unanimously endorsed BoD when almost the opposite is true.
Too easy assumptions are a great enemy of truth. And they just get repeated over, and over, and over . . .
This is a major reason why the discussion and exchanges here are so valuable.
-
Too easy assumptions are a great enemy of truth. And they just get repeated over, and over, and over . . .
This is a major reason why the discussion and exchanges here are so valuable.
I'm looking into the St. Augustine "retraction" of BOD.
After about 15 minutes of doing so, let me hastily add: perhaps the "retraction" of BOD by St. Augustine is a "too easy assumption."
-
This should get interesting.
St. Augustine's professed support for BOD comes in Book IV, Chapter 22 of his book, On Baptism Against the Donatists. There he states:
Chapter 22.
30. That the place of baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is sometimes supplied by martyrdom (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk023.htm#verse43) On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), but also faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm) of baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), but as the reward of his own deeds (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm); nor did he suffer because he believed (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm), but he believed (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm)." Romans 10:10 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom010.htm#verse10) But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), which, according to the testimony of holy (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), and for this action we have the authority of an apostle as the warrant. So far ought all of us to be from being induced by any imperfection in the inner man, if it so happen that before baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) a person has advanced, through the workings of a pious (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748a.htm) heart, to spiritual understanding, to despise a sacrament which is applied to the body by the hands of the minister, but which is God's own means for working spiritually a man's dedication to Himself. Nor do I conceive that the function of baptizing (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) was assigned to John, so that it should be called John's baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), for any other reason except that the Lord Himself, who had appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of His servant, Matthew 3:6, 13 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat003.htm#verse6) might consecrate the path of humility, and show most plainly by such an action how high a value was to be placed on His own baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), with which He Himself was afterwards to baptize (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). For He saw, like an excellent physician of eternal (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) salvation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm), that overweening pride (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12405a.htm) would be found in some, who, having made such progress in the understanding of the truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) and in uprightness of character that they would not hesitate to place themselves, both in life and knowledge (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm), above many that were baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), would think it was unnecessary for them to be baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), since they felt that they had attained a frame of mind to which many that were baptized (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) were still only endeavoring to raise themselves.
CHURCH FATHERS: On Baptism, Book IV (Augustine) (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm)
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm)In his book, The Retractions, St. Augustine reviews his 7 books on baptism regarding the Donatists, and makes a correction as noted below about his statement regarding the good thief for the sake of being accurate and precise about whether he was baptized or not, but says nothing about retracting his support for the position that one could be regenerated before receiving the sacrament, as in "the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) of the moment."
Here's the sole retraction regarding the very section at issue cited above:
In the fourth book, when I said: "Suffering can take the place of baptism,” 5 I cited the example of the thief, which is not quite appropriate, for it is uncertain whether he had been baptized
Augustine Retractations : St Augustine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/augustineretractations/page/n181/mode/2up)
Where's the "retraction" of BOD? For the sake of truth and being accurate, he's simply correcting a statement about the good thief, since in his case "it is uncertain whether he has been baptized." That's it.
If St. Augustine indeed "retracted" a support of BOD, that would have been the time, while scrutinizing error in the very section where he supported BOD.
He didn't retract his support of the concept.
-
Since it is a de fide teaching of the Church and the highest of this world's authorities defined infallibly that the sacrament is necessary for salvation, I ask the simple question - why continually quote teachings from the greatest saints and doctors when their teachings contradict defined dogmas?
Do BODers disagree that defined dogma over rules everything and everyone - even St. Thomas, St. Augustine, Saint Alphonsus - and anyone else who taught/teaches contrary to defined dogma?
-
Here's the sole retraction regarding the very section at issue cited above:
Where's the "retraction" of BOD? For the sake of truth and being accurate, he's simply correcting a statement about the good thief, since in his case "it is uncertain whether he has been baptized." That's it.
If St. Augustine indeed "retracted" a support of BOD, that would have been the time, while scrutinizing error in the very section where he supported BOD.
He didn't retract his support of the concept.
See new thread
St. Augustine's Abandonment of BOD of the Catechumen (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-augustine's-abandonment-of-bod-of-the-catechumen-60326/msg737545/#msg737545)
-
See new thread
St. Augustine's Abandonment of BOD of the Catechumen (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-augustine's-abandonment-of-bod-of-the-catechumen-60326/msg737545/#msg737545)
What! How dare you to copy and paste!
-
There’s no one who isn’t retracting it. We all retract it. Future citations will be to “an article published by the SSPV”, just as we cite “an article published by the CMRI” entitled “The Salvation of those Outside the Church” — which I did look up. This is a case of a poster attributing it incorrectly and people repeating it without looking it up. There was no malice here. It’s even possible that Fr. Cekada quoted it in some other context that we can’t find, causing the original poster to believe it was his own. Not sure how the mistake was made, but I doubt it was done on purpose. Very few of us have the time to look up every single quote. There are probably a dozen or more fake “sayings of Padre Pio” on the web that live on for the same reason.
When people cite it, it’s to demonstrate an IDEA that we contend is actually behind WHY most people end up being BoD zealots. When you scratch beneath the surface, you almost always find that this sentiment is actually what drives it. It’s to your credit that you’re honestly looking at this issue despite the fact that an implicit BoD would comfort you regarding your mother. In this quote we have someone finally admitting this motivation honestly, which is why we keep referring to it.
I looked in my archives and could not find where I got that Fr. Cekada said that. It looks like the articles I had were all about Fr. Cekada defending the salvation of Muslims, Jҽωs, Hindus etc., and the SSPV article was tied to it, so over time I gave the credit for the quote to Fr. Cekada for his honesty, very unusual in a BODer. Anyone that goes back to all the times that I posted the quote will see that I complemented Fr. Cekada on his honesty. I now retract that complement. The complement belongs to someone named Fenton, who I never heard of.
-
What! How dare you to copy and paste!
He's just finally gotten fed up with the BoD spamming and said, "see, we can do it too."
Next time someone spams in those same 3 or 4 BoD quotes, I'm going to have my own copy-paste job handy.
See, I always take the time to give a thoughtful response and rarely spam, but I'm getting sick of wasting my time refuting the same crap over and over and over again. I'm this close to joining the game.
I have half a mind to spam in the entire 300-page Dimond treatment of No Salvation Outside the Church.
-
He's just finally gotten fed up with the BoD spamming and said, "see, we can do it too."
Next time someone spams in those same 3 or 4 BoD quotes, I'm going to have my own copy-paste job handy.
See, I always take the time to give a thoughtful response and rarely spam, but I'm getting sick of wasting my time refuting the same crap over and over and over again. I'm this close to joining the game.
I have half a mind to spam in the entire 300-page Dimond treatment of No Salvation Outside the Church.
Sorry if I offended you, but now you know how we feel. It would be a better idea to spend your energy on converting all these infidels you worry about that are going to steal a place in heaven.
-
It would be a better idea to spend your energy on converting all these infidels you worry about ...
That is exactly why I am posting here, to show the infidels that what you are teaching is a lie from Satan, that the only tue religion is the Catholic faith, that to be saved they must become Catholics and really live the faith and die without one mortal sin on their soul, that even if they shed their blood for Christ they can't be saved unless they are Catholics and live in the sacraments. In short:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jҽωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
-
Sorry if I offended you, but now you know how we feel. It would be a better idea to spend your energy on converting all these infidels you worry about that are going to steal a place in heaven.
Interesting that you honestly use the word infidels:
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
-
And if you are waiting for an argument from me, don't hold your breath. BOD in its true understanding has nothing to do with souls dying OUTSIDE the Church.
It, (BOD) has everything to do with souls eager to enter the Church but pass away too soon.
-
And if you are waiting for an argument from me, don't hold your breath. BOD in its true understanding has nothing to do with souls dying OUTSIDE the Church.
It, (BOD) has everything to do with souls eager to enter the Church but pass away too soon.
The omnipotence of God is in question if someone passes away "too soon". Funny how man is able to fulfill his obligation for bod, but God is unable to fulfill His end of the deal for Baptism. This is the number one reason bod cannot possibly exist. What an insult.
-
God fulfills which is why the Church teaches BOD, after all the Church is Christ!
-
God fulfills which is why the Church teaches BOD, after all the Church is Christ!
GOd fulfills which is why the Church says Baptism is necessary.
-
GOd fulfills which is why the Church says Baptism is necessary.
Do you also deny the Church teaching on General absolution. An absolution given without confession of sin, when confession is impossible, e.g., to soldiers on the battlefield Persons so absolved must in their next confession confess the sins from which they were absolved. Another historical example is the absolution given by Fr. William Corby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Corby) to the Irish Brigade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_(U.S.)) during the Battle of Gettysburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg) in 1863.
Disregard the Vatican II abuse of said teaching, as they abuse the doctrine on BOD also.
-
(BOD) has everything to do with souls eager to enter the Church but pass away too soon.
Instead of accepting the biblical truth that God truly, infallibly, and fully "wills all men to be saved", through the visible Church, men invent ways around this, because otherwise salvation is unexplainable. And modern men can't stand the idea of not knowing something, which is simply, pride.
-
Instead of accepting the biblical truth that God truly, infallibly, and fully "wills all men to be saved", through the visible Church, men invent ways around this, because otherwise salvation is unexplainable. And modern men can't stand the idea of not knowing something, which is simply, pride.
Look into the mirror and repeat the above.
-
The omnipotence of God is in question if someone passes away "too soon". Funny how man is able to fulfill his obligation for bod, but God is unable to fulfill His end of the deal for Baptism. This is the number one reason bod cannot possibly exist. What an insult.
This exactly. I believe the more a BOD is promoted, the more Almighty God is offended.
-
Do you also deny the Church teaching on General absolution. An absolution given without confession of sin, when confession is impossible, e.g., to soldiers on the battlefield Persons so absolved must in their next confession confess the sins from which they were absolved. Another historical example is the absolution given by Fr. William Corby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Corby) to the Irish Brigade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_(U.S.)) during the Battle of Gettysburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg) in 1863.
Disregard the Vatican II abuse of said teaching, as they abuse the doctrine on BOD also.
Non sequitur. Baptism, since the promulgation of the gospel, is necessary for salvation, without exception.
"Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" --Jesus Christ.
Sooner men burn in hell than God is made a liar.
-
Do you also deny the Church teaching on General absolution. An absolution given without confession of sin, when confession is impossible, e.g., to soldiers on the battlefield Persons so absolved must in their next confession confess the sins from which they were absolved. Another historical example is the absolution given by Fr. William Corby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Corby) to the Irish Brigade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_(U.S.)) during the Battle of Gettysburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg) in 1863.
Disregard the Vatican II abuse of said teaching, as they abuse the doctrine on BOD also.
Question for all you BODers above?
:popcorn:
-
I'm not sure what General Absolution has to do with any of this. :confused:
-
I'm not sure what General Absolution has to do with any of this. :confused:
It works on the same principle as BOD properly taught is my understanding.
Rare as is BOD these days but effective when properly given. Meaning both the recipient is in need because death is imminent - both are in need of the Sacrament because of either mortal sin or original sin - both MUST BE GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE - BOTH UNDERSTANDS THAT the SACRAMENT is required at a later time if death did not occur.
Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation may be attained by other means also.
Can. 961 ง1 General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together, unless:
1ฐ danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
2ฐ there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time.
-
It works on the same principle as BOD properly taught is my understanding.
Your understanding is wrong and contrary to Trent.
-
Your understanding is wrong and contrary to Trent.
Don't bother to explain! If you can!
-
God fulfills which is why the Church teaches BOD, after all the Church is Christ!
God fulfills, without the need for BOD because nothing is impossible with God. Suggesting that God must break the water and Holy Spirit rule because someone might die on Him is absurd.
-
It works on the same principle as BOD properly taught is my understanding.
Rare as is BOD these days but effective when properly given. Meaning both the recipient is in need because death is imminent - both are in need of the Sacrament because of either mortal sin or original sin - both MUST BE GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE - BOTH UNDERSTANDS THAT the SACRAMENT is required at a later time if death did not occur.
I guess I still don't understand. In the case of General Absolution, the Sacrament is still being conferred in re, with the only difference being that the penitent must still confess any unconfessed mortal sins at the next possible occasion. It's just as if a penitent accidentally forgot to mention some sin. In that case, the Sacrament still happens, and the person is restored to grace, even though not all sins were confessed. Or in the case of a dying person who can't talk. In all those situations, the Sacrament is still happening. Necessity only serves to defer the obligation of confessing every sin right there and then. And, of course, if the priest pronounced a general absolution, and there was a mixed group, the Sacrament would only be effective toward those who were Catholics and who had the right dispositions for Confession at the time the words were pronounced.
-
I guess I still don't understand. In the case of General Absolution, the Sacrament is still being conferred in re, with the only difference being that the penitent must still confess any unconfessed mortal sins at the next possible occasion. It's just as if a penitent accidentally forgot to mention some sin. In that case, the Sacrament still happens, and the person is restored to grace, even though not all sins were confessed. Or in the case of a dying person who can't talk. In all those situations, the Sacrament is still happening. Necessity only serves to defer the obligation of confessing every sin right there and then. And, of course, if the priest pronounced a general absolution, and there was a mixed group, the Sacrament would only be effective toward those who were Catholics and who had the right dispositions for Confession at the time the words were pronounced.
That thought also came to my mind; however, the penitent must still go to the actual SACRAMENT if they survived, which begs the question; was it the sacrament to the fullest? Just as BOD is not a Sacrament, it suffices if death occurs, as does General absolution. The Principle is the same I believe.
Thank you for your reply, now let's wait and see what Pax comes up with since his nominal response indicates the difference is explained in Trent.
The happening of the Sacrament/or desire for it is limited, (Speaking of General absolution) i.e. some tragedy as the sinking of the Titanic. Of course would only apply to Catholics, not infidels who might have been in said group.
-
God fulfills, without the need for BOD because nothing is impossible with God. Suggesting that God must break the water and Holy Spirit rule because someone might die on Him is absurd.
ABSOLUTELY!
-
That thought also came to my mind; however, the penitent must still go to the actual SACRAMENT if they survived, which begs the question; was it the sacrament to the fullest?
Well, as I said, it's similar to the scenario where a penitent perhaps forgot to mention a mortal sin (not deliberately withholding). There's a valid absolution, so the Sacrament was in fact confected. So I think this is not quite the same thing as BoD.
-
That thought also came to my mind; however, the penitent must still go to the actual SACRAMENT if they survived, which begs the question; was it the sacrament to the fullest? Just as BOD is not a Sacrament, it suffices if death occurs,
.
Trent does not say, teach or imply that a BOD'er who dies before reception of ACTUAL baptism, is saved. Trent only says that those who vow to receive baptism, can get a "head start" on being in a state of grace. Further, Trent says that the SACRAMENT is necessary for heaven. BOD isn't a sacrament, so it cannot provide heaven. Forget catechisms, they are not infallible. The pope does not write catechisms. They can be tampered with and many have been proven to have deliberate mis-translations.
.
God does not create rules/doctrine in order to break them. This would be a destruction if His integrity, authority and respect. “Oh what kind of God makes rules that can’t be followed and He has to break them?”, pagans would say. It would destroy the fabric of Catholicism. It would destroy our respect for God.
.
This also applies to BOD. The graces of justification ONLY work for those who vow/promise to receive the sacrament. Those that 1) are unable to, or 2) made an insincere promise do NOT get the graces.
.
Those that die before reception of the sacrament, we can (and must) say that 1) they were not sincere or 2) God worked a miracle to provide water baptism that we didn’t see or weren’t there.
.
To say that a person dies before baptism and goes to heave due to BOD is heresy and accuses God of changing the rules. It accuses God of lying to us, and makes doctrine arbitrary because God changes whatever, whenever.
.
The proper catholic explanation is that God created the rules of the sacraments. God is unchanging and eternal, so His rules for grace and holiness are unchanging and eternal. If one can not fulfill the rules humanly, God will work a miracle to fulfill the rules. He does not suspend or alter the rules. In a sense, He’s not allowed. He cannot deceive.
.
This is why those who try to explain BOD outside of the rules are utterly confused and never agree. Because anything not of God leads to confusion.
-
Well, as I said, it's similar to the scenario where a penitent perhaps forgot to mention a mortal sin (not deliberately withholding). There's a valid absolution, so the Sacrament was in fact confected. So I think this is not quite the same thing as BoD.
The problem with your reply is, forgetting to mention a mortal sin, was not the purpose for providing General absolution. Forgetting to mention a mortal sin, one needs to get back into the confessional, and explain to the priest they forgot to mention yada yada. In the meantime, if the penitent truly forgot and dies before he/she got back into the confessional box, the Mercy of God, ( the forgotten sin would be forgiven by God) As I was taught back in the day, my Catholic school prior to VII.
It might help if you looked up Canons below yourself:
What, then, is the purpose of general absolution, which involves the granting of absolution to a group without the priest having heard each person’s individual confession of sins? Canon 961.1 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3F.HTM) explains that there are two situations when it may properly be used.
The first (c. 961.1 n.1 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3F.HTM)) obtains when danger of death threatens, and there is insufficient time for the available priest(s) to hear the confessions of everyone present. The most obvious situation in which this might happen is a time of war. Imagine, for example, that Sunday Mass is being celebrated in a parish church that is more or less crowded with parishioners. Suddenly, planes are heard overhead, and bσɱbs begin to fall. It is quite possible that the church may be hit and everyone inside killed in a matter of moments. At that point, the celebrant of the Mass would rightly move to give general absolution quickly to the entire congregation.
The second situation (c. 961.1 n.2 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3F.HTM)) pertains to circuмstances which are less extreme. It involves a “grave necessity,” described as a large number of penitents and an insufficient number of available confessors, such that there is no time to hear everyone’s confession, and the faithful would be deprived of the grace of the sacrament for a lengthy period of time.
-
Well, as I said, it's similar to the scenario where a penitent perhaps forgot to mention a mortal sin (not deliberately withholding). There's a valid absolution, so the Sacrament was in fact confected. So I think this is not quite the same thing as BoD.
Myrna is trying to exemplify General Absolution, something the Church actually [rarely] does, as grounds to promote a BOD, which is something the Church actually cannot ever do, or even partake of.
-
Pax quote
Those that die before reception of the sacrament, we can (and must) say that 1) they were not sincere or 2) God worked a miracle to provide water baptism that we didn’t see or weren’t there.
Perhaps that is what He did, resulting in the dying soul being saved. It doesn't matter how He, did it, as long as God saves the person who was GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE, but in human eyes was not water Baptised but in God's Eyes He was. The Mercy of God wins again as always.
-
ABSOLUTELY!
Ok we're getting somewhere. Baptism is necessary for salvation. God doesn't need to resort to some non baptism, a mythical "baptism by desire", because God is God, which means He can provide the real deal, Baptism, for otherwise impossible circuмstances, even if He has to perform a miracle where He decides to do it. This is not BOD, it's a miraculous Baptism, and water actually flows on them, or the person cannot be saved.
-
Perhaps that is what He did, resulting in the dying soul being saved. It doesn't matter how He, did it, as long as God saves the person who was GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE, but in human eyes was not water Baptised but in God's Eyes He was.
No, that's heresy. Trent teaches infallibly that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism. Trent says that these words are "not a metaphor" but reality.
.
Water matters because all sacraments are part spiritual, part natural. Water + the Holy Ghost.
.
You MUST explain salvation based on doctrine. If you are going to create "what if" scenarios, then you create them involving water and miracles. You don't ignore doctrine (i.e. water) and say it's a miracle. God does not contradict Himself.
-
Myrna is trying to exemplify General Absolution, something the Church actually [rarely] does, as grounds to promote a BOD, which is something the Church actually cannot ever do, or even partake of.
So Stubborn it seems you do WANT to deny General Absolution (rarely) BUT POSSIBLE, RIGHT? Same principle as BOD, you want so much to deny General absolution you add the world RARELY!
The bottom line Stubborn is, if it was never ever needed it wouldn't be in the Canon. The age we live in today, we might need General Absolution more than you imagine.
-
No, that's heresy. Trent teaches infallibly that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism. Trent says that these words are "not a metaphor" but reality.
.
Water matters because all sacraments are part spiritual, part natural. Water + the Holy Ghost.
.
You MUST explain salvation based on doctrine. If you are going to create "what if" scenarios, then you create them involving water and miracles. You don't ignore doctrine (i.e. water) and say it's a miracle. God does not contradict Himself.
Pax read your post, you are the one who created that scenario, the miracle. Not I!
Your reply #94 above
-
Keep up, Myrna. I'm talking about your "what if" where the believer died before baptism. Either 1) he wasn't a believer and wasn't saved because God read his heart and he wasn't sincere. Or 2) God worked a miracle and the believer was baptized WITH WATER before death.
.
We cannot say that an unbaptized person gains heaven. We can say that the unbaptized, justified goes to Limbo only.
-
So Stubborn it seems you do WANT to deny General Absolution (rarely) BUT POSSIBLE, RIGHT? Same principle as BOD, you want so much to deny General absolution you add the world RARELY!
The bottom line Stubborn is, if it was never ever needed it wouldn't be in the Canon. The age we live in today, we might need General Absolution more than you imagine.
You either missed the moral of what I wrote, or you agree with it - which is it? Allow me to expand what I said a bit to make it a bit more obvious......
I said: "Myrna is trying to exemplify General Absolution, something the Church, (which is Christ) actually [rarely] does, as grounds to promote a BOD, which is something the Church, (which is Christ) actually cannot ever do, or even partake of".
Which is to say God plays no part whatsoever in a BOD, because if He did, a BOD could never happen. See what I mean now?
-
I'm looking into the St. Augustine "retraction" of BOD.
After about 15 minutes of doing so, let me hastily add: perhaps the "retraction" of BOD by St. Augustine is a "too easy assumption."
It appears to me that we need to be on guard when assuming the accuracy of quotes/accusations. I think I always was, but more so now.
-
I'm looking into the St. Augustine "retraction" of BOD.
After about 15 minutes of doing so, let me hastily add: perhaps the "retraction" of BOD by St. Augustine is a "too easy assumption."
There's an entire article written about it here:
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Rahner also agreed (before this article cam out) that this was the case.
There's no "assumption" here.
You keep "assuming" that these are "assumptions".