Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus  (Read 2630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6361
  • Reputation: +3583/-1041
  • Gender: Male
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #120 on: February 23, 2021, 09:12:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • QUIT POSTING QUOTES AND HAVE A NORMAL CONVERSATION.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #121 on: February 23, 2021, 09:15:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're assuming (with no evidence) that Limbo = lost.  I disagree.


    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2052
    • Reputation: +288/-476
    • Gender: Male
    • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #122 on: February 23, 2021, 09:18:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • According to you, some justified souls, who died washed in Christ's Blood, and sanctified by His Holy Spirit, are eternally deprived of the Beatific Vision. I consider that impossible.

    The Just of the OT were not eternally deprived of the Beatific Vision, but only temporarily, until Christ came.

    We may have to agree to disagree. Pax.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! 
    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #123 on: February 23, 2021, 09:38:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    According to you, some justified souls, who died washed in Christ's Blood, and sanctified by His Holy Spirit, are eternally deprived of the Beatific Vision. I consider that impossible.

    Then what's the point of the baptismal mark?  It's optional?
    .
    For the 4th time (and you can say "you don't know"), why did St Ambrose make a distinction between the non-crowned martyred catechumen and the crowned one?  According to you, both martyred catechumens would be saved.  But why did St Ambrose say one was crowned and one wasn't?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #124 on: February 23, 2021, 10:05:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The baptismal character marks one as a Christian, while just being in the state of grace does not.  All men, whether Christian or not, can repent of their sins (as the story of Jonah and Ninevah shows).  All men, thus, can obtain grace before God.  But the SACRAMENT of baptism alone, provides the indelible mark, which is distinct from the grace of the sacrament (justification).
    .
    St Paul speaks of being "sealed" with Christ.  He also says baptism makes one "clothed with Christ".  It's not clear that BOD provides any of this, because the character of baptism is distinct from the grace.  St Thomas says the baptismal character can never be lost, while sacramental grace can be, through sin.


    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2052
    • Reputation: +288/-476
    • Gender: Male
    • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #125 on: February 23, 2021, 10:13:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I did answer it, including saying "I'm not sure" and "I don't know" about one part of it. In the other part, St. Ambrose said that as martyrs are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him also. That's clear. The part about being crowned I'm not sure.

    Anyway, St. Ambrose spoke before Trent. I asked you to explain Trent's teaching. Can you quote it and give me your view on it?

    The Baptismal Character signifies the Sacrament cannot be repeated. People are not to be rebaptized, as St. Augustine proved when the controversy arose in his time. Pope St. Stephen also in controverting St. Cyprian's error on the subject.

    The Baptismal Character also causes a man to belong to the Body of the Church. But as explained in the article, the dogma doesn't say "one must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved", but "outside the Church there is no sanctification or salvation". Those in justifying grace belong to the Soul of the Church. As the Soul is within a person, those in the Soul of the Church are within Her.

    The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X teaches the Soul of the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine and Catholic Theologians also do.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! 
    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #126 on: February 23, 2021, 10:31:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok, as long as you admit that justification alone, if one does not have the baptismal character, does not mean they are worthy for heaven.  This is a disputed question.  I don't know.  You don't know.  Fr Feeney doesn't know.  Trent doesn't tell us.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2052
    • Reputation: +288/-476
    • Gender: Male
    • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #127 on: February 23, 2021, 10:54:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did you miss this, Pax Vobis, from the Council of Trent.

    When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
    Quote
    Quote
    ...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].

    1. The justified have completely satisfied divine law by their good works done in Grace.
    2. They have moreover truly merited eternal life which they will certainly attain in due time.
    3. If they but die in the state of grace, they have merited and will obtain eternal life.
    The Council of Trent taught this. I cited it earlier on. Do you believe it?
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! 
    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #128 on: February 23, 2021, 11:03:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trent is assuming that the justified spoken of here, were baptized.  That is the normal way to be justified.  That is how 99.999999999999% of people are justified - by reception of the sacrament.
    .
    Trent says the SACRAMENT of baptism is necessary for salvation, just like St Ambrose says only the "initiated" martyred catechumens gain the crown.  BOD is not a sacrament.
    .
    BOD is mentioned once, in a small phrase, in all of the vast pages of Trent.  It is the exception.  You can't read Trent with the exception in mind (i.e. BOD); that's dishonest.  You must assume that Trent is talking about the rule (i.e. sacramental baptism), not the exception.
    .
    Your interpretation may be correct; it may not be.  St Thomas distinguishes between the character and not.  St Ambrose does too.  Trent does not address it.  We don't know.

    Online Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4671
    • Reputation: +2455/-1302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #129 on: February 23, 2021, 11:47:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Baptismal Character also causes a man to belong to the Body of the Church. But as explained in the article, the dogma doesn't say "one must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved", but "outside the Church there is no sanctification or salvation". Those in justifying grace belong to the Soul of the Church. As the Soul is within a person, those in the Soul of the Church are within Her. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X teaches the Soul of the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine and Catholic Theologians also do.
    There is no Soul of the Church except the Holy Ghost. Everything with these false BODers has an answer that is an end run. They keep repeating the same errors over and over and over no matter how many times they are corrected it is always the same thing. If their teaching were building, a high rise, it would be windows magically floating in the sky. At every turn when they meet a dogma that obstructs them, they come up with an interpretation that is not what the dogma clearly teaches.

    Quote
    XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, which the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include in any dogmatic decrees of EENS, till I discovered it on the internet. 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. It is not an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized :
     
     Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to
     state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Ghost is her soul."
     
     Second, the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.
     Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical body, the Church (corpore mystico)…”
     
     Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”
     
     Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His mystical Body.”
     
     Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body.
     
     A man can be either inside the Church or outside the Church. He can be either inside or outside the Body. There isn’t a third realm in which the Church exists – an invisible Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body, deny the undivided unity of the Church’s Body and Soul, which is parallel to denying the undivided unity of Christ’s Divine and Human natures.
     
     Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in error... It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
     
     The denial of the union of the Church’s Body and Soul leads to the heresy that the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI and Pius XII.
     Third, the clearest proof against the “Soul of the Church” error logically follows from the first two already discussed. The third proof is that the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church has defined that belonging to the Body of the Church is necessary for salvation! Pope Eugene IV, in his famous Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ.
     
     Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jҽωs, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
     
     
     
     Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”
     
     Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
     “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and nonexempt,belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”
     
     Pope Clement XIV, Cum Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”



    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #130 on: February 23, 2021, 12:06:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    The Baptismal Character also causes a man to belong to the Body of the Church. But as explained in the article, the dogma doesn't say "one must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved", but "outside the Church there is no sanctification or salvation". Those in justifying grace belong to the Soul of the Church. As the Soul is within a person, those in the Soul of the Church are within Her.

    Major Correction:  Outside the Church there is no salvation.  You added the phrase "sanctification or".
    .
    Is it possible to be sanctified outside the Church, as are the justified but unbaptized?  Maybe.
    Is it possible to be a member of the Church, while unbaptized?  I don't think so. 
    .
    Your above quote, Xavier, denies the efficacy and importance of the baptismal character, which is heresy.  The "Soul of the Church" is not a dogma, so you need to treat this idea as a theory.  Dogmas are believed without question; theories are changed to fit dogmas. You are changing dogmas to fit theories.  That's anti-catholic. 


    Online Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4671
    • Reputation: +2455/-1302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #131 on: February 23, 2021, 12:11:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BOD is mentioned once, in a small phrase, in all of the vast pages of Trent.  It is the exception.  You can't read Trent with the exception in mind (i.e. BOD); that's dishonest.  You must assume that Trent is talking about the rule (i.e. sacramental baptism), not the exception.
    BOD is never mentioned in Trent. What is mentioned in Trent is votum for the sacrament, and the question, the debate, is whether it means that votum for the sacrament of baptism alone suffices for justification, or the sacrament and votum  are required. The quote ends with "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 for someone to say that this only place in all of Trent mentions BOD,  is to directly contradict the "as it is written".

    Add to that that Trent says nothing about implicit BOD (which the BODers gratuitously disregard)

    Add to that that Trent does not mention BOD in the section on baptism but instead says again clearly that one must be water baptized

    Quote
    Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
    On Baptism
    Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
    CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

    No, BOD is not mentioned in Trent and moreover it is clearly rejected "as it is written"

    Add to all the above that the False BODer takes all their "interpretations" for granted, then kills their un-baptized "justified" person "by accident" and asks what happens to him? Then they gratuitously answer themselves that they go to heaven. The whole thing is a stack of cards, buildings composed of windows floating in the sky. 
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6361
    • Reputation: +3583/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #132 on: February 23, 2021, 12:39:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    ...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].

    Xavier, let us note that your above quote is from Session VI.  Let us continue to the next Session VII and see the first words of Trent from this session:
    .
    For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church,
    .
    In other words, Session VII starts off with the idea that it will COMPLETE the DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATION.  So, the quote you pulled from Session VI is. not. complete.  Your quote MUST be understood in light of Sessions VI and VII together.
    .
    Secondly, your quote is not a dogma, properly defined, but only the commentary from theologians.  Dogma/doctrine are infallible; commentary is not.
    .
    Thirdly, let us look at the dogmas that Session VII defines and see how they COMPLETE our view on Justification:
    .
    CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
    .

    Let's break down the above canon so that it can be understood by public school minds.  It's a very legalistic paragraph, so it's not normal talk:
    .
    CANON IV.-
    1.  If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; (...let him be anathema).
    .
    2.  (If any one saith) that, without them (i.e. the sacraments), or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; (...let him be anathema)
    .
    though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
    .
    By strict english, Trent is condemning three things in the above sentence, which is why it's confusing.
    .
    CONDEMNATION #1
    a.  Is BOD a sacrament?  No.
    b.  Does Trent require the sacraments for salvation, per the above?  Yes.
    .
    CONDEMNATION #2
    a.  Can you receive justification without the sacrament?  No.
    b.  Can you receive a sacrament without desiring to receive it?  That is, can a sacrament be forced on you?  No.

    .
    CONDEMNATION #3
    3.  Is BOD justification obtained by "faith alone"?  Yes.
    4.  Does Trent anathematize the idea of receiving justification by "faith alone"?  Yes.
    .
     

    Online Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4671
    • Reputation: +2455/-1302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #133 on: February 23, 2021, 12:45:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • XavierSem-isms (like Yogi-isms! LOL)


    Quote
    XavierSem says - Outside of the Church there is no salvation, but there are also the soul of the Church people who are not baptized, yes, that's what the soul of the Church is, a bunch of unbaptized nice people, but the Holy Ghost forgot to inspire the councils and popes to include that any dogmatic decrees of EENS, till I discovered it on the internet.

    XavierSem says- I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God miraculously appeared to them and scared them to convert or go to hell.  Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are in a laughing mood, to fill in while we are waiting for another XavierSem-ism,  here are some Yogi-isms:



    NY Yankees legend Yogi Berra, 18-time All-Star, appeared in 14 World Series as a member of the Yankees and won 10 of them. Berra’s contributions to baseball are incalculable, but his legacy might be even better remembered for what he contributed to American language. A sportswriters’ favorite, Berra had countless expressions and turns of phrase that were memorable ...and many of them are just attributed to Berra, even if he never actually said them. As he so perfectly put it: “I never said most of the things I said.”

    1. When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
    2. You can observe a lot by just watching.
    3. It ain’t over till it’s over.
    4. It’s like déjà vu all over again.
    5. No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded.
    6. Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.
    7. A nickel ain’t worth a dime anymore.
    8. Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.
    9. We made too many wrong mistakes.
    10. Congratulations. I knew the record would stand until it was broken.
    11. You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I’m not hungry enough to eat six.
    12. You wouldn’t have won if we’d beaten you.
    13. I usually take a two-hour nap from one to four.
    14. Never answer an αnσnymσus letter.
    15. Slump? I ain’t in no slump… I just ain’t hitting.
    16. How can you think and hit at the same time?
    17. The future ain’t what it used to be.
    18. I tell the kids, somebody’s gotta win, somebody’s gotta lose. Just don’t fight about it. Just try to get better.
    19. It gets late early out here.
    20. If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s going to stop them.
    21. We have deep depth.
    22. Pair up in threes.
    23. Why buy good luggage, you only use it when you travel.
    24. You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you are going, because you might not get there.
    25. All pitchers are liars or crybabies.

    USA TODAY Sports

    26. Even Napoleon had his Watergate.
    27. Bill Dickey is learning me his experience.
    28. He hits from both sides of the plate. He’s amphibious.
    29. It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much.
    30. I can see how he (Sandy Koufax) won twenty-five games. What I don’t understand is how he lost five.
    31. I don’t know (if they were men or women fans running naked across the field). They had bags over their heads.
    32. I’m a lucky guy and I’m happy to be with the Yankees. And I want to thank everyone for making this night necessary.
    33. I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.
    34. In baseball, you don’t know nothing.
    35. I never blame myself when I’m not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn’t my fault that I’m not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
    36. I never said most of the things I said.
    37. It ain’t the heat, it’s the humility.
    38. If you ask me anything I don’t know, I’m not going to answer.
    39. I wish everybody had the drive he (Joe DiMaggio) had. He never did anything wrong on the field. I’d never seen him dive for a ball, everything was a chest-high catch, and he never walked off the field.
    40. So I’m ugly. I never saw anyone hit with his face.
    41. Take it with a grin of salt.
    42. (On the 1973 Mets) We were overwhelming underdogs.
    43. The towels were so thick there I could hardly close my suitcase.
    44. Little League baseball is a very good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets.
    45. Mickey Mantle was a very good golfer, but we weren’t allowed to play golf during the season; only at spring training.
    46. You don’t have to swing hard to hit a home run. If you got the timing, it’ll go.
    47. I’m lucky. Usually you’re dead to get your own museum, but I’m still alive to see mine.
    48. If I didn’t make it in baseball, I won’t have made it workin’. I didn’t like to work.
    49. If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.
    50. A lot of guys go, ‘Hey, Yog, say a Yogi-ism.’ I tell ’em, ‘I don’t know any.’ They want me to make one up. I don’t make ’em up. I don’t even know when I say it. They’re the truth. And it is the truth. I don’t know.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2052
    • Reputation: +288/-476
    • Gender: Male
    • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #134 on: February 24, 2021, 07:15:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • LOL. Don't you people ever read your Catechisms? The uncreated Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, and His Gift of Sanctifying Grace. The created Soul of the Church refers to all those in the State of Grace. Soul of the Church is not just a theory but a doctrine.

    There was also a Pope who said "Outside the Church there is neither salvation nor forgiveness of sin". All who receive forgiveness of sins, i.e. justification, as Fr. Feeney admits, must necesarily be WITHIN the Church. They may not belong to Her Body, but to Her Soul.

    Here is Pope St. Pius X, the Ninth Article of the Creed: "22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
    A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.

    Q. 29 ... if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

    Baltimore Catechism: "Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons [baptized Protestants in material heresy only] are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church. https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-11.htm

    The Catechism also gives the Church's true understanding of Her own dogma, "A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved." It is those who knowingly remain apart from the Church, for e.g. formal heretics, who cannot be saved. Concerning those who err in good faith, St. Augustine said "they are not to be accounted heretics". i.e. are in material heresy or mere error only, which is not a sin. Hence, they can belong to the Soul of the Church.

    St. Robert Bellarmine: The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 2: "Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible."

    Although Catholics don't agree with the Dimondite methodology of "Sola Trent", BOD can easily be proved from Trent itself. Another thread for that.

    Last Tradhican claims I believe: "Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics."

    If they had explicit faith in Christ, and Perfect Contrition, yes. Our Lord said not to judge by appearances but judge righteous judgment.

    It's not for you to judge anyway, since you're not God. If they give visible signs of conversion, the Church prays for them liturgically.

    Otherwise, we can pray for them in hope- as both St. John Vianney and St. Padre Pio did - imploring God they converted before death.

    I showed that this is approved Church Teaching from Fr. Mueller's Catechism. If I recall Bp. George Hay also teaches the same thing.
    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! 
    (1) All your family members will be saved (2) Your loved ones in Purgatory will be released, and (3) you yourself will not need Purgatory if you make it.
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16