Quote from: saintbosco13

Nothing is taught by the Church unless it originates from revelation. If anyone in the Church is teaching something that has not existed since the time of the Apostles, they are creating new doctrine and would therefore not even be Catholic, and would be condemned as such.

Was Saint Augustine's views (see below) condemned?  You, obviously, do not understand the concept of theological opinion:

Quote

   Theological certainty                Description
1.   De fide -- Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered infallible revelation
2.   Fides ecclesiastica -- Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium, considered infallible revelation
3.   Sententia fidei proxima -- Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4.   Sententia certa -- Church teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation
5.   Sententia communis -- Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research
6.   Sententia probabilis -- Teachings with low degree of certainty
7.   Opinio tolerata -- Opinions tolerated within the Catholic Church, such as pious legends

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma

The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.
These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

(A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning, Vol. 1. 1906, pp. 83-84.)

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: saintbosco13

Nothing is taught by the Church unless it originates from revelation. If anyone in the Church is teaching something that has not existed since the time of the Apostles, they are creating new doctrine and would therefore not even be Catholic, and would be condemned as such.

Was Saint Augustine's views (see below) condemned?  You, obviously, do not understand the concept of theological opinion:

Quote

   Theological certainty                Description
1.   De fide -- Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered infallible revelation
2.   Fides ecclesiastica -- Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium, considered infallible revelation
3.   Sententia fidei proxima -- Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4.   Sententia certa -- Church teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation
5.   Sententia communis -- Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research
6.   Sententia probabilis -- Teachings with low degree of certainty
7.   Opinio tolerata -- Opinions tolerated within the Catholic Church, such as pious legends

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma

Jehanne, only #7 is truly opinion. The fact that you rely on Wikipedia is troubling to say the least.

The editors of the article reference (# 23) the Fundamentals of Catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott, 1964, Herder, ASIN: B002BZOUAI pages 9-10.

If you think that the article contains errors, then you should fix it!

Dear saintbosco13,

Here's a question to ask the owner of that link:

Do you believe in the theory of Implicit Faith (if he's knows anything, I don't need to explain more)? If he does, and I'm certain that he does, then he thereby rejects ALL of the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the Saints, and most of all the Athanasian Creed. He would then be a hypocrite for siting tradition against the Augustinian school believers in a strict EENS.

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
snip.....
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
snip...
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
 

Quote from: bowler

Dear saintbosco13,

Here's a question to ask the owner of that link:

Do you believe in the theory of Implicit Faith (if he's knows anything, I don't need to explain more)? If he does, and I'm certain that he does, then he thereby rejects ALL of the Fathers, St. Thomas and the Thomists, ALL the Saints, and most of all the Athanasian Creed. He would then be a hypocrite for siting tradition against the Augustinian school believers in a strict EENS.

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
snip.....
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
snip...
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
 

Remember, someone in invincible ignorance does not reject the Trinity, they have simply not been taught about it. Again, see quotes from Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X.

St. Alphonsus rejected the idea of salvation for the invincibly ignorant

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Here’s a very interesting new quote from St. Alphonsus which refutes the heresy that people can be saved who are ignorant of the Gospel, the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential mysteries of the Catholic faith).  This is important because many baptism of desire heretics in our day – who believe that souls can be saved in false religions and without belief in Christ – falsely assert that saints such as St. Alphonsus agreed with them.  This is totally false.  

This is obviously not to suggest that saints, such as St. Alphonsus, were correct about everything; rather it is prove, once again, that not one saint held the heresy of “invincible ignorance,” the idea that ignorant non-Catholics can be saved in false religions or without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.  This heresy of invincible ignorance is held by almost all people who believe in “baptism of desire” today.  Here’s the quote from St. Alphonsus’ book, The History of Heresies.

St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted.  But what is this remote grace?  St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.  Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”

As we see, St. Alphonsus is clearly making reference to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas below (which is cited in my book), in which he denies that any soul who is ignorant of the Gospel can be saved.  Rather, if there is a person who is completely ignorant of the faith but who is of good will, God will make sure that he comes to a knowledge of the faith.  

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.  St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance.  In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…” [256]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.” [ii][257]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.” [iii][258]

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica:  “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.” [iv][259]

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica:  “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” [v][260]

Therefore, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, like all of the fathers of the Church, rejected the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics.  Their speculation and erroneous teaching on baptism of blood/desire only regarded those who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (the most essential mysteries of Catholic faith).  And this point really shows the dishonesty of modern heretics, who like to quote St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire to somehow justify their heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved by “baptism of desire.”  

----------
Here is another important quote that I’m just now getting around to citing on our website.  This important quote absolutely proves that St. Alphonsus, like all the Doctors of the Church, rejected the false idea that souls who are “invincibly ignorant” of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith can be saved.

St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

Notice that St. Alphonsus is explicitly discussing the concept of invincible ignorance.  He is explicitly addressing the question of whether souls who are “inculpably ignorant” of Our Lord and the Trinity can be saved, AND HE DENIES IT.  He affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved.  This is a very important quotation because the heretical idea that souls can be saved in other religions is rampant in Traditional circles, and is taught by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.  These groups teach the false and heretical idea that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.

St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church.  How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)

You are being duped in two ways: As far as the Fathers are concerned, the tactic is to mix Baptism of Blood with Explicit Baptism of desire of the catechumen (the Fathers ALL condemned the idea that any heretic, pagan, Jew could be saved) and then to top it off, you post only the Fathers names, omitting their quotes. With regard to after the time of the  Fathers, they use explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen to make it look like implicit faith was taught by ANY SAINT. Post the quotes and not just the names, if not, you are just wasting our time. To be blunt, I don't take peoples word for anything, and neither should any Catholic. Post the quotes from the authorities!

Here are St. Augustine and St. Ambrose speaking clearly against explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen:

St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal?  This is the witness of Scripture, too.”

St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice.  Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”

St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
   
St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
 
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘  they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

     


St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”



St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”


St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment.  Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”

     It should be noted that since the term “baptism of desire” was not in use at the time, one won’t find St. John Chrysostom or any other father explicitly rejecting that term.  They reject baptism of desire when they reject the concept that unbaptized catechumens can be saved without Baptism, as St. John Chrysostom repeatedly does.

St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”



St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”



St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal!  They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”

     The “seal” is the fathers’ term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism.  And here we see St. John affirming the apostolic truth held by all the fathers: that no one – including a catechumen – is saved without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence.  ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword.  ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”

     St. John Chrysostom clearly rejected any possibility of salvation for one who has not received the Sacrament of Baptism.  He affirmed the words of Christ in John 3:5 with an unequivocally literal understanding, which is the unanimous teaching of Tradition and the teaching of defined Catholic dogma.

Here are 2 quotes from Pope Pius IX and Saint Pope Pius X both teaching what you say is a novelty. Please confirm for us that you are indeed saying these popes taught a novelty to the faithful.

Pope Pius IX (19th century): Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 1863: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132, "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved.  But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."