Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: saintbosco13 on April 20, 2013, 08:28:46 PM
-
Great website for those struggling with the Feeneyism issue.
-
That website should have the below snip right at the top.............
So simple and easy, indeed, did the Lord Jesus make the sign of the Sacrament, it is altogether pointless to argue for the fictitious forms referred to as "baptism of blood," and "baptism of desire."
Should anyone desire baptism, all he needs to do is ask someone to baptize him. Anyone!
-
I am a "Feeneyite" and a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire. I posted on this before but the above website is, basically, "pounding on open doors":
1) Baptism of Desire confers sanctifying grace. We all agree on that and Father Feeney taught it. Baptism of Desire (or, "desire of Baptism") is a grace given by the One and Triune God, and everyone agrees that it will place an individual in a state of justification before God via the merits of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.
2) The character of Baptism confers grace. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle Doctor and theologian, taught this explicitly, but it seldom gets mentioned:
As stated above (a. 1, ad 2; q. 68, a. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but aferwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa q.69, a.4, ad 2)
Saint Thomas is teaching that a catechumen who dies with only "Baptism of Desire" in the absence of martyrdom and without sacramental Baptism would still have to suffer the temporal punishments in Purgatory for his/her sins.
So, in Catholic theology, "justification" is not an either/or thing. There are degrees of reward in Heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in Hell, so in that sense, one can become "more and more" justified before the Triune God over time.
3) Catholic martyrs go straight to Heaven. This is a pitiful "straw man" that some like to "use" against we "Feeneyites." The only question is, "Has the Sovereign God allowed such martyrs to enter into Paradise lacking the indelible seal of Baptism?" No one at either of the two Saint Benedict Centers believes that a true martyr for Christ would go to Hell for want of sacramental Baptism, unless one wishes to apply the label "Feeneyite" to those individuals who espouse views which Father Feeney himself would have anathematized. This brings me to my next point...
4) Proving negatives. While there is universal agreement among traditional Catholics on Points #1, #2 and #3, here is where folks start to diverge. In particular, "How could you, I, or anyone else ever 'prove,' 'know,' etc., that someone, anyone, was never sacramentally baptized, if only in that person's infancy?" In other words, to embrace Baptism of Desire as some "standalone" de fide dogma of the Catholic Faith is to try and "prove negatives," cosmic ones, in fact. Our God is a big God, omnipotent, which means that He can bring the character of sacramental Baptism (and, hence, its graces) to anyone whom He wishes.
5) Angels can baptize. Saint Thomas taught this possibility explicitly but it rarely gets mentioned:
"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels. But if demons, who are 'lying spirits,' were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid." (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.64, a.7)
"Since the order of Divine Providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (q. 109, a. 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.111, a.1)[/quote]
6) Angels are outside of "time and space". Per the Angelic Doctor, they can do amazing things:
"As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), 'The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved'; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel's movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle..." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.2)
"This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel's movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel's movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was already shown (a. 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (a. 2)." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.3, ad 3)
The above concepts were ridiculed in physics, until Albert Einstein came along. Point is, though, that if angels can baptized, how could you, I, or anyone else ever hope to "prove" or "know" that such did not occur with respect to any particular individual? Seems kind of silly.
7) The Catholic Church has never defined that there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism. We all agree that Baptism of Desire (or "desire for Baptism") confers sanctifying grace, and we all agree that the Sacrament of Baptism also confers additional graces, and we all agree that true martyrs for Christ go straight to Paradise. If the Catholic Church wanted to define that there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, then the Magisterium could have stated something like this:
"If anyone says that there are no individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, let him be anathema."
So, the question if there are persons in Heaven who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism is still "fair game," an open theological question, which is why there are "Feeneyites" who, to this very day, are in full communion with Rome.
-
I am a "Feeneyite" and a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire. I posted on this before but the above website is, basically, "pounding on open doors":
1) Baptism of Desire confers sanctifying grace. We all agree on that and Father Feeney taught it. Baptism of Desire (or, "desire of Baptism") is a grace given by the One and Triune God, and everyone agrees that it will place an individual in a state of justification before God via the merits of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.
2) The character of Baptism confers grace. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle Doctor and theologian, taught this explicitly, but it seldom gets mentioned:
As stated above (a. 1, ad 2; q. 68, a. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but aferwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa q.69, a.4, ad 2)
Saint Thomas is teaching that a catechumen who dies with only "Baptism of Desire" in the absence of martyrdom and without sacramental Baptism would still have to suffer the temporal punishments in Purgatory for his/her sins.
So, in Catholic theology, "justification" is not an either/or thing. There are degrees of reward in Heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in Hell, so in that sense, one can become "more and more" justified before the Triune God over time.
3) Catholic martyrs go straight to Heaven. This is a pitiful "straw man" that some like to "use" against we "Feeneyites." The only question is, "Has the Sovereign God allowed such martyrs to enter into Paradise lacking the indelible seal of Baptism?" No one at either of the two Saint Benedict Centers believes that a true martyr for Christ would go to Hell for want of sacramental Baptism, unless one wishes to apply the label "Feeneyite" to those individuals who espouse views which Father Feeney himself would have anathematized. This brings me to my next point...
4) Proving negatives. While there is universal agreement among traditional Catholics on Points #1, #2 and #3, here is where folks start to diverge. In particular, "How could you, I, or anyone else ever 'prove,' 'know,' etc., that someone, anyone, was never sacramentally baptized, if only in that person's infancy?" In other words, to embrace Baptism of Desire as some "standalone" de fide dogma of the Catholic Faith is to try and "prove negatives," cosmic ones, in fact. Our God is a big God, omnipotent, which means that He can bring the character of sacramental Baptism (and, hence, its graces) to anyone whom He wishes.
5) Angels can baptize. Saint Thomas taught this possibility explicitly but it rarely gets mentioned:
"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels. But if demons, who are 'lying spirits,' were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid." (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.64, a.7)
"Since the order of Divine Providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (q. 109, a. 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.111, a.1)
6) Angels are outside of "time and space". Per the Angelic Doctor, they can do amazing things:
"As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), 'The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved'; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel's movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle..." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.2)
"This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel's movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel's movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was already shown (a. 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (a. 2)." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.3, ad 3)
The above concepts were ridiculed in physics, until Albert Einstein came along. Point is, though, that if angels can baptized, how could you, I, or anyone else ever hope to "prove" or "know" that such did not occur with respect to any particular individual? Seems kind of silly.
7) The Catholic Church has never defined that there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism. We all agree that Baptism of Desire (or "desire for Baptism") confers sanctifying grace, and we all agree that the Sacrament of Baptism also confers additional graces, and we all agree that true martyrs for Christ go straight to Paradise. If the Catholic Church wanted to define that there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, then the Magisterium could have stated something like this:
"If anyone says that there are no individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, let him be anathema."
So, the question if there are persons in Heaven who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism is still "fair game," an open theological question, which is why there are "Feeneyites" who, to this very day, are in full communion with Rome.
-
So, the question if there are persons in Heaven who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism is still "fair game," an open theological question, which is why there are "Feeneyites" who, to this very day, are in full communion with Rome.
Explain what is meant by "full communion."
-
So, the question if there are persons in Heaven who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism is still "fair game," an open theological question, which is why there are "Feeneyites" who, to this very day, are in full communion with Rome.
Explain what is meant by "full communion."
They have approved diocesan Masses and receive the Sacraments from a Catholic bishop who is in good standing with Rome:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/
-
That website should have the below snip right at the top.............
So simple and easy, indeed, did the Lord Jesus make the sign of the Sacrament, it is altogether pointless to argue for the fictitious forms referred to as "baptism of blood," and "baptism of desire."
Should anyone desire baptism, all he needs to do is ask someone to baptize him. Anyone!
You completely misunderstand what baptism of desire is. Yes, if I knew what baptism was and I desired it, I would just go ask to receive it. But baptism of desire refers to someone who knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith. Let's say a person on a remote island for instance. A person in such a situation who knows nothing about baptism but yet believes there is a God, wanting to fulfill all that God wants of him to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins, implicitly desires the Sacrament he knows nothing about. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X clearly speak of this.
I suggest you look at that website, as it is only one page. If you have questions or feel there is something erroneous with the content, contact them.
-
That website should have the below snip right at the top.............
So simple and easy, indeed, did the Lord Jesus make the sign of the Sacrament, it is altogether pointless to argue for the fictitious forms referred to as "baptism of blood," and "baptism of desire."
Should anyone desire baptism, all he needs to do is ask someone to baptize him. Anyone!
You completely misunderstand what baptism of desire is. Yes, if I knew what baptism was and I desired it, I would just go ask to receive it. But baptism of desire refers to someone who knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith. Let's say a person on a remote island for instance. A person in such a situation who knows nothing about baptism but yet believes there is a God, wanting to fulfill all that God wants of him to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins, implicitly desires the Sacrament he knows nothing about. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X clearly speak of this.
I suggest you look at that website, as it is only one page. If you have questions or feel there is something erroneous with the content, contact them.
In Father Feeney's opinion, the following never occurs:
The Sacrament of Baptism, which was instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, imprints a "character" on the soul, admitting the recipient to membership in the Catholic Church. The matter of Baptism is natural water poured over the head of the person to be baptized. Throughout the history of the Catholic Church it has been unanimously taught that both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, while not Sacraments in themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament, when Baptism of Water becomes a physical or moral impossibility.
Given the One and Triune God's omnipotence over all of His Creation, Baptism of Water is never a "physical or moral impossibility", ever. However, this is just a theological opinion:
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
This is what the "anti-Feeneyite" crowd can't understand; what Father Feeney asserted in his The Bread of Life was at the level of a theological opinion.
-
That website should have the below snip right at the top.............
So simple and easy, indeed, did the Lord Jesus make the sign of the Sacrament, it is altogether pointless to argue for the fictitious forms referred to as "baptism of blood," and "baptism of desire."
Should anyone desire baptism, all he needs to do is ask someone to baptize him. Anyone!
You completely misunderstand what baptism of desire is. Yes, if I knew what baptism was and I desired it, I would just go ask to receive it. But baptism of desire refers to someone who knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith. Let's say a person on a remote island for instance. A person in such a situation who knows nothing about baptism but yet believes there is a God, wanting to fulfill all that God wants of him to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins, implicitly desires the Sacrament he knows nothing about. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X clearly speak of this.
I suggest you look at that website, as it is only one page. If you have questions or feel there is something erroneous with the content, contact them.
The person you describe does not exist - never has. If you think I am wrong then the burden of proof lies on you to produce evidence of such a person.
Whoever "knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith" certainly could not desire baptism because he knows nothing about it. One cannot desire for something he knows nothing about.
Further, "A person in such a situation who knows nothing about baptism but yet believes there is a God, wanting to fulfill all that God wants of him to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins," if this imaginary person did exist, God would see to it that the person received the Sacrament - *that* is what the doctrine of Divine Providence teaches. "For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."
The web page you posted is so full of errors that it should be removed from the web before it scandalizes more people than it may have already scandalized.
-
They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.
-
They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.
The CMRI only lists two such martyrs:
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml
Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized? Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?
In any case, we're into trying to "prove negatives," again. Even in the case of Emperor Valentinian, we could assert, if only as a possibility, that he was, in fact, sacramentally baptized prior to his death and that Saint Ambrose was simply ignorant of that fact.
-
They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.
Mith,
St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. *What we do not know is not a proof of anything*.
Further, if the Church honors anyone as a saint, *according to Her own teaching*, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
-
Whoever "knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith" certainly could not desire baptism because he knows nothing about it. One cannot desire for something he knows nothing about.
Again, this shows you do not understand the topic. Anyone who knows about Baptism knows it is needed to be saved, so they would immediately pursue it upon learning about it. Someone who knows nothing about Baptism (let's say a person on a remote island), but craves to do the will of God, and craves to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins, implicitly desires what is needed to be part of the true Church, and can be granted the grace of the sacrament through desire. THAT is the teaching of the Church. PLENTY of quotes from the Church stating this. Quotes from Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X are on that website.
Further, "A person in such a situation who knows nothing about baptism but yet believes there is a God, wanting to fulfill all that God wants of him to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins," if this imaginary person did exist, God would see to it that the person received the Sacrament - *that* is what the doctrine of Divine Providence teaches. "For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."
The quote you gave here has nothing to do with God guaranteeing someone will receive Baptism if they want it. You've taken a quote and used it for your own fancy.
The web page you posted is so full of errors that it should be removed from the web before it scandalizes more people than it may have already scandalized.
Name some.
-
Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized? Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?
Looking up the definition of "catechumen" in "A Catholic Dictionary", it is defined as "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church; a learner. Catechumens receive ecclesiastical burial if they die without baptism through no fault of their own (cf., Baptism of desire)."
-
The post will not format properly so I will simply answer without quoting your post above.
This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.
That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium". As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".
There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly - so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1
-
Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized? Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?
Looking up the definition of "catechumen" in "A Catholic Dictionary", it is defined as "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church; a learner. Catechumens receive ecclesiastical burial if they die without baptism through no fault of their own (cf., Baptism of desire)."
I don't know that such a definition was always the same everywhere in the universal Church 1500 years ago as it is today. Note my signature, and then note the quote from Father Karl Rahner, an unabashed progressive, in the link which I provided earlier.
Are you saying that I am a heretic if I hope that the martyrs mentioned as being catechumens in the Roman Martyrology were able to experience sacramental Baptism prior to their martyrdom (which, by the way, was also their hope), and perhaps the Roman Martyrology got a few of its details wrong? After all, it was revised "with corrections" throughout the centuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Martyrology
No one has ever claimed that it was completely infallible and without error of any kind, hence, the revisions to it.
P.S. Truth does not depend upon "post popularity," and so what is, ultimately, the Truth will assert itself in the End.
-
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. *What we do not know is not a proof of anything*.
Further, if the Church honors anyone as a saint, *according to Her own teaching*, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737).
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
-
This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.
That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium". As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".
There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly - so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1
You are suggesting that we submit to that which is infallible. That is good. Are you not aware that the First Vatican Council stated that both solemn and ordinary teaching are infallible and must be believed?
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." First Vatican Council
I pulled this from Baptismofdesire.com. I know you hate the thought of reading that site (which is only one page, btw), but maybe it's time you did because the answers are all there. It's literally a 5 minute read.
-
Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized? Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?
Looking up the definition of "catechumen" in "A Catholic Dictionary", it is defined as "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church; a learner. Catechumens receive ecclesiastical burial if they die without baptism through no fault of their own (cf., Baptism of desire)."
I don't know that such a definition was always the same everywhere in the universal Church 1500 years ago as it is today.
Note this same definition is referenced in Canon Law (1917), which was a compilation of all Church law going back 1500 years. The fact that Canon Law (1917) goes back 1500 years is stated in the preface of the book, "The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law". So that should dispel your doubts.
-
Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized? Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?
Looking up the definition of "catechumen" in "A Catholic Dictionary", it is defined as "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church; a learner. Catechumens receive ecclesiastical burial if they die without baptism through no fault of their own (cf., Baptism of desire)."
I don't know that such a definition was always the same everywhere in the universal Church 1500 years ago as it is today.
Note this same definition is referenced in Canon Law (1917), which was a compilation of all Church law going back 1500 years. The fact that Canon Law (1917) goes back 1500 years is stated in the preface of the book, "The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law". So that should dispel your doubts.
You're "pounding on open doors." Father Feeney received a Mass of Christian Burial, by his bishop. Are you claiming that his bishop gave such a burial to a public heretic? Are you saying that Pope Paul VI allowed a public heretic to be reconciled to the Church without first abjuring his public errors:
Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1º notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2º those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3º other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
Are you claiming that a Roman Catholic bishop is giving the sacrament of Confirmation to public heretics:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/multimedia/slideshows/474-confirmation2012.html
Are you claiming that the Father Karl Rahner, in spite of his progressive theology, was not a valid periti at the Second Vatican Council and that he was wrong, at least in his historical scholarship, when he wrote the following:
"...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 57 and Gregory of Nyssa 58 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." (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)
Are you saying that Saint Augustine, a Church Father, was a heretic?
-
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. *What we do not know is not a proof of anything*.
Further, if the Church honors anyone as a saint, *according to Her own teaching*, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737).
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
Two points to consider:
1) the person on the remote island is no catechumen yet you attempted to justify his salvation without the sacrament. This serves as an excellent example of how easily and how far from the truth BOD leads people.
2) Prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Church taught that "neither the commemoration of Sacrifice or the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism". - Council of Braga 6th century
What this shows is what the constant teaching of the Church was up until less than 100 years ago. IOW, BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith, what it is, is theological speculation at best, outright heresy at worst.
-
This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.
That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium". As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".
There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly - so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1
You are suggesting that we submit to that which is infallible. That is good. Are you not aware that the First Vatican Council stated that both solemn and ordinary teaching are infallible and must be believed?
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." First Vatican Council
I pulled this from Baptismofdesire.com. I know you hate the thought of reading that site (which is only one page, btw), but maybe it's time you did because the answers are all there. It's literally a 5 minute read.
Using the same logic, it is easy to see how we should all be obedient to the Second Vatican Council because there is no finer example of the teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium. - - - - but thankfully, it does not work that way.
Please recall that V1 taught "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine"...... BOD is a new doctrine, it is not of the Deposit of Faith, it is not of the Apostles, it is certainly not what Christ or the scriptures teach and since the necessity of the sacrament has been defined infallibly, the issue of whether BOD saves or not has already been defined that it does not save - so the matter has been authoritatively and infallibly settled for all time.
Best you stick to the teaching which is certainly free from the possibility of error - when you do this, you cannot agree with BOD.
As such, you deny the dogma when you believe in BOD.
-
They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.
Mith,
St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. *What we do not know is not a proof of anything*.
Further, if the Church honors anyone as a saint, *according to Her own teaching*, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
Please give me the source for the 11 million martyrs quoted by St. Alphonsus?
Baptism by water is so easy, it is hard for me to believe 11 million souls wanted it, but could not get it by water?
Saliva on one's fingertips, "I Baptize you..." and 15 seconds later... you're in!
-
They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.
Mith,
St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. *What we do not know is not a proof of anything*.
Further, if the Church honors anyone as a saint, *according to Her own teaching*, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
Please give me the source for the 11 million martyrs quoted by St. Alphonsus?
Baptism by water is so easy, it is hard for me to believe 11 million souls wanted it, but could not get it by water?
Saliva on one's fingertips, "I Baptize you..." and 15 seconds later... you're in!
Saliva will not work, it must be water, pure and natural. Tap water is fine, soda is not, coffee is not etc.
Out of the 11 million+, only about 10 are reported to have died without the sacrament.
-
1) the person on the remote island is no catechumen yet you attempted to justify his salvation without the sacrament. This serves as an excellent example of how easily and how far from the truth BOD leads people.
How can a native on a remote island be a catechumen! The definition of a catechumen is "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church"...
2) Prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Church taught that "neither the commemoration of Sacrifice or the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism". - Council of Braga 6th century
I'm shocked that you used the quote from the Council of Braga against baptism of desire, when the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the article on Baptism, references the same quote in favor of it! Full context below. The same quote is used in favor of Baptism of desire since a "commemoration of sacrifice" is not needed for catechumens, since they are assumed baptized by desire. The article gives an example of this with the Emperor being assumed to have baptism of desire.
Note, only one paragraph after this one, in the same article on Baptism, there is the section called "Substitutes for the Sacrament" where it goes into all the proofs for baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Better scratch the quote from the Council of Braga from your arsenal!
Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism
"A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."
-
Using the same logic, it is easy to see how we should all be obedient to the Second Vatican Council because there is no finer example of the teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium. - - - - but thankfully, it does not work that way.
The Second Vatican Council has teachings that oppose all teachings of the Catholic Church before it. By definition, that excludes it from being part of the solemn or ordinary magisterium.
Please recall that V1 taught "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine"...... BOD is a new doctrine, it is not of the Deposit of Faith, it is not of the Apostles, it is certainly not what Christ or the scriptures teach and since the necessity of the sacrament has been defined infallibly, the issue of whether BOD saves or not has already been defined that it does not save - so the matter has been authoritatively and infallibly settled for all time.
Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.
-
How about the Last Gospel of John for a vouchsafe that only Baptism by water will do?
The Last Gospel
St John unfolds the great mystery of the Incarnation.
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2: He was in the beginning with God; 3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4: In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7: He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8: He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 9: The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. 10: He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. 11: He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. 12: But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.
-
Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.
So, are you saying that if I go to a Mass of Christian of Burial for a catechumen who, allegedly, died without sacramental Baptism, that it is wrong, even sinful, for me to at least hope that the individual did, in fact, end his/her life with sacramental Baptism? After all, if that catechumen truly desired to be Baptized, then did not the Triune God desire that as well? And, if so, what's wrong with at least hoping that the individual catechumen and God Himself both achieved what they both desired?
-
1) the person on the remote island is no catechumen yet you attempted to justify his salvation without the sacrament. This serves as an excellent example of how easily and how far from the truth BOD leads people.
How can a native on a remote island be a catechumen! The definition of a catechumen is "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church"...
2) Prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Church taught that "neither the commemoration of Sacrifice or the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism". - Council of Braga 6th century
I'm shocked that you used the quote from the Council of Braga against baptism of desire, when the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the article on Baptism, references the same quote in favor of it! Full context below. The same quote is used in favor of Baptism of desire since a "commemoration of sacrifice" is not needed for catechumens, since they are assumed baptized by desire. The article gives an example of this with the Emperor being assumed to have baptism of desire.
Note, only one paragraph after this one, in the same article on Baptism, there is the section called "Substitutes for the Sacrament" where it goes into all the proofs for baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Better scratch the quote from the Council of Braga from your arsenal!
Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism
"A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."
:confused1:
-
Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.
Why do you think I said it was full of errors and should be removed from the web?
-
The post will not format properly so I will simply answer without quoting your post above.
This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.
That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium". As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".
There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly - so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1
Didn't you used to be in favor of BOD/BOB?
-
Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737).
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
That is totally self-contradictory.
First it says "Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words."
So Baptism in fact or "in desire" is necessary unto all for salvation, but then it says "is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words."
So baptism is necessary and is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words. But "baptism of desire" is precisely this: baptism without the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.
That is a contradiction.
-
The post will not format properly so I will simply answer without quoting your post above.
This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.
That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium". As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".
There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly - so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1
Didn't you used to be in favor of BOD/BOB?
My definition of BOD was that God can save whomever He wishes at any time by whatever means He chooses to use -in the case of all who are predestined for heaven - including the unbaptized and sincere catachumen who unknowingly is about to die who desires to be baptized, he will get that which he desires because it is necessary - God will provide him the sacrament.
But even though other saints and doctors and theologians have taught various different theories of BOD, the Church has always taught - and infallibly so, that we cannot get to heaven outside the Church hence with out the sacrament.
-
Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737).
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
That is totally self-contradictory.
First it says "Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words."
So Baptism in fact or "in desire" is necessary unto all for salvation, but then it says "is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words."
So baptism is necessary and is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words. But "baptism of desire" is precisely this: baptism without the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.
That is a contradiction.
Yes it is contradictory - and as you so aptly pointed out - obviously so.
To paraphrase Fr. Wathen:
"Everybody in favor of BOD who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away.............. He begins by affirming the truth of the dogma, and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so."
-
My definition of BOD was that God can save whomever He wishes at any time by whatever means He chooses to use -in the case of all who are predestined for heaven - including the unbaptized and sincere catachumen who unknowingly is about to die who desires to be baptized, he will get that which he desires because it is necessary - God will provide him the sacrament.
But even though other saints and doctors and theologians have taught various different theories of BOD, the Church has always taught - and infallibly so, that we cannot get to heaven outside the Church hence with out the sacrament.
That is a miraculous baptism, not baptism of desire. In the latter you supposedly don't receive the sacrament but are saved by its desire, that's the whole concept.
-
That website should have the below snip right at the top.............
So simple and easy, indeed, did the Lord Jesus make the sign of the Sacrament, it is altogether pointless to argue for the fictitious forms referred to as "baptism of blood," and "baptism of desire."
Should anyone desire baptism, all he needs to do is ask someone to baptize him. Anyone!
You completely misunderstand what baptism of desire is. Yes, if I knew what baptism was and I desired it, I would just go ask to receive it. But baptism of desire refers to someone who knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith. Let's say a person on a remote island for instance. A person in such a situation who knows nothing about baptism but yet believes there is a God, wanting to fulfill all that God wants of him to be saved, and has perfect contrition for his sins, implicitly desires the Sacrament he knows nothing about. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X clearly speak of this.
If that information came from the website, then the website is in error, for the premise of what you wrote is wrong, that "baptism of desire refers to someone who knows nothing about baptism because he has never been educated about the true faith".
Here's the Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics originally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
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.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
from Lesson 14: On Baptism
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
-
[Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience.
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
Tell that to Pius IX.
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
Tell that to Pius IX.
Tell that to Fr. Mueller, Fr. William Faber, Bishop George Hay, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, and pretty much ANY Saint and Doctor of the Church who had anything to say on the matter. In fact they all taught the exact OPPOSITE of what the salvation heretics teach on this matter.
Michael Muller and others even defended Pius IX's statements and said he did NOT teach what liberals think he taught.
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
Tell that to Pius IX.
Tell that to Fr. Mueller, Fr. William Faber, Bishop George Hay, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, and pretty much ANY Saint and Doctor of the Church who had anything to say on the matter. In fact they all taught the exact OPPOSITE of what the salvation heretics teach on this matter.
Michael Muller and others even defended Pius IX's statements and said he did NOT teach what liberals think he taught.
Careful not to start with the strawmen.
Pius IX taught:
"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 (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, no 7)."
Is he a heretic? Or is there a secret, hidden meaning where he means something opposite of what he wrote?
-
Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737).
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
That is totally self-contradictory.
First it says "Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words."
So Baptism in fact or "in desire" is necessary unto all for salvation, but then it says "is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words."
So baptism is necessary and is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words. But "baptism of desire" is precisely this: baptism without the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.
That is a contradiction.
There is no contradiction. You need to understand that Baptism of water is the Sacrament, and Baptism of desire and blood are NOT the Sacraments....they only supply the grace of the Sacrament in rare cases.
Read this text from the article on Baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia from early 1900s:
X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood."
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
You need to learn your faith my friend. Look at the quotes from Pope Pius IX and St. Pope Pius X on baptismofdesire.com. They plainly speak of invincible ignorance.
-
O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!
Romans 11:33
Baptise your children and advise others to do the same. Now shall we talk about Limbo?
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
Tell that to Pius IX.
Tell that to Fr. Mueller, Fr. William Faber, Bishop George Hay, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, and pretty much ANY Saint and Doctor of the Church who had anything to say on the matter. In fact they all taught the exact OPPOSITE of what the salvation heretics teach on this matter.
Michael Muller and others even defended Pius IX's statements and said he did NOT teach what liberals think he taught.
Careful not to start with the strawmen.
Pius IX taught:
"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 (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, no 7)."
One could read Pope Pius IX's words as teaching that the Holy Spirit would reveal the explicit truths of the Catholic faith to such individuals. That is how Fr. Mueller read things. Remember, also, that the First Vatican Council came after Pope Pius IX's two Magisterial statements on "invincible ignorance," and that Council stated the following:
First Vatican Council -- Chapter 3 On faith
7. And so faith in itself, even though it may not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God himself when he accepts and collaborates with his grace which he could have rejected.
9. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.
13. So it comes about that, like a standard lifted up for the nations, she both invites to herself those who have not yet believed, and likewise assures her sons and daughters that the faith they profess rests on the firmest of foundations.
14. To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.
15. Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.
This being so, giving thanks to God the Father who has made us worthy to share with the saints in light let us not neglect so great a salvation, but looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, let us hold the unshakable confession of our hope.
-
Careful not to start with the strawmen.
Pius IX taught:
"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 (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, no 7)."
Is he a heretic? Or is there a secret, hidden meaning where he means something opposite of what he wrote?
Careful not to start with strawmen eh?
Did Pius IX said there anywhere that invincibly ignorant people will be saved by a so-called "implicit desire for baptism" which they are not even aware about? Or without explicit faith in the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation? Or that Christ-denying Jews can have sanctifying grace (Fahey)? Or that "souls can be saved in religions other than the Catholic religion but not by this religion" (Lefebvre)?
You're not serious, are you? You'd do well to read this: http://www.cfnews.org/invig.htm
Father Muller already refuted anything you may think you may have read into Pius IX's words well before you were even born.
No, you are the one accusing Pope Pius IX for teaching a heresy he never taught, just like Muller said.
-
Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them. After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin? On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?
Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.
The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!
But it appears Bp. Fellay believes it, if this quote is accurate:
_________________________________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:
“We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church?
It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
______________________________________________________________
-
St. Alphonsus wasn't opposed to implicit desire. And you have yet to prove Pius IX condemned it!
-
There is no contradiction. You need to understand that Baptism of water is the Sacrament, and Baptism of desire and blood are NOT the Sacraments....they only supply the grace of the Sacrament in rare cases.
Read this text from the article on Baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia from early 1900s:
X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood."
According to St. Thomas, “that is necessary without which something cannot be" Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 (Metaph. V).
So the Code says that both the Sacrament of Baptism "or at least the desire for it" are necessary unto all for salvation. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot be both true at the same time.
If I say that salvation cannot be without the sacrament, then obviously salvation CANNOT BE without the sacrament! And what is BOD but salvation without the sacrament?
And yes i have already read the encyclopedia, you dont need to quote it. It is infected with modernism.
-
Wrong! Baptism of desire presupposes the person to go and be baptized if he still lived and was given the chance to be baptized. One must be baptized in fact or in desire, if one cannot, through no fault of their own, be given the sacrament. Your syllogism is quite wrong. Again and again, I see faulty logic on the part of people denying BOD/BOB.
-
St. Alphonsus wasn't opposed to implicit desire. And you have yet to prove Pius IX condemned it!
But it is not what he held either is it?
I did not say Pius IX "condemned it." I said he didn't teach it. Big difference.
-
But it appears Bp. Fellay believes it
And what authority is he?
-
St. Alphonsus wasn't opposed to implicit desire. And you have yet to prove Pius IX condemned it!
But it is not what he held either is it?
I did not say Pius IX "condemned it." I said he didn't teach it. Big difference.
It was implicitly there, using Mit's quotation of that encyclical!
-
Wrong! Baptism of desire presupposes the person to go and be baptized if he still lived and was given the chance to be baptized. One must be baptized in fact or in desire, if one cannot, through no fault of their own, be given the sacrament. Your syllogism is quite wrong. Again and again, I see faulty logic on the part of people denying BOD/BOB.
Sure.
It is perfectly logical and not contradictory in the least to say that it is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION that you need to have water poured on you while the Trinitarian formula is recited, and then right away say that it is NOT necessary to have water poured on you or to recite the formula because desire sufices.
That's perfectly logical.
-
It was implicitly there, using Mit's quotation of that encyclical!
What exactly are you referring to? Me or Pius IX?
-
St. Alphonsus wasn't opposed to implicit desire. And you have yet to prove Pius IX condemned it!
But it is not what he held either is it?
I did not say Pius IX "condemned it." I said he didn't teach it. Big difference.
It was implicitly there, using Mit's quotation of that encyclical!
Yes, it is. One would think that if Pius IX meant that the invincibly ignorant would not remain invincibly ignorant, that he would have said that. He was anything but ambiguous. And, considering the immense significance of someone being invincibly ignorant, it seems to reason that His Holiness of blessed memory would have clearly stated this significant change in the person from being invincibly ignorant to being miraculously not ignorant, and baptized with water by an angel, or some other extraordinary means.
Instead, he acknowledges the existence of the invincibly ignorant (at least in 1863) and states that God will not punish them if they do not deliberately sing, observe the natural law and are ready to obey God.
Re: the article posted, written by Fr. Mueller. The objections in the article are not fit for this discussion, because I (nor do I think is anyone else) am not arguing that invincible ignorance is a means to salvation. That is God's grace and mercy, not a merit (or demerit) of man.
The principle of BOD/BOB/Invincible ignorance is not that man's salvation is an effect caused by his own action or state (in desiring baptism, dying for the faith before it, or being invincibly ignorant of it) but that his salvation comes about no differently than anyone else's: by the grace of God.
-
Yes, it is. One would think that if Pius IX meant that the invincibly ignorant would not remain invincibly ignorant, that he would have said that. He was anything but ambiguous. And, considering the immense significance of someone being invincibly ignorant, it seems to reason that His Holiness of blessed memory would have clearly stated this significant change in the person from being invincibly ignorant to being miraculously not ignorant, and baptized with water by an angel, or some other extraordinary means.
Instead, he acknowledges the existence of the invincibly ignorant (at least in 1863) and states that God will not punish them if they do not deliberately sing, observe the natural law and are ready to obey God.
Re: the article posted, written by Fr. Mueller. The objections in the article are not fit for this discussion, because I (nor do I think is anyone else) am not arguing that invincible ignorance is a means to salvation. That is God's grace and mercy, not a merit (or demerit) of man.
The principle of BOD/BOB/Invincible ignorance is not that man's salvation is an effect caused by his own action or state (in desiring baptism, dying for the faith before it, or being invincibly ignorant of it) but that his salvation comes about no differently than anyone else's: by the grace of God.
This is from the Dimond boys; although i disagree with them on many things, as far as i can tell they are right regarding this:
First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man “living in
error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of
salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”? Why, of course, it is the idea that a man living in
error and separated from the true Faith can be saved. So, the very concept of salvation
for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned as QUITE CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC
TEACHING in this very docuмent of Pope Pius IX.
Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly
ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by
God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel]
attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the
truth and into the Church by baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred
Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which
removes the ignorant from darkness.
Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord.
Walk then as children of the light.”
1 Thess. 5:4‐5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness… For all you
are the children of the light.”
Colossians 1:12‐13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy
to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the
power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His
love.”
1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a purchased people: that you may
declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous
light.”
2 Corinthians 4:3‐4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In
whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
not shine unto them.”
2 Timothy 1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior
Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and
incorruption by the Gospel.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I (+1870): “… no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the
Gospel,’ as he must to attain salvation, without the illumination and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and
believing the truth.”
So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the
good‐willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their
clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received
by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized. Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur
Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good‐willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the
Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will
enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.
-
First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man “living in
error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of
salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”? Why, of course, it is the idea that a man living in
error and separated from the true Faith can be saved.
No, no it's not. And they (the Dimond bros) even admit this later on in the same article, by acknowledging the qualifiers that Pius IX attaches to the paragraph in question (that the invincibly ignorant must observe the natural order, live honest lives, and be ready to co-operate with God). The very point of invincible ignorance as taught by Pius IX is that it only applies to those who meet these conditions, which upon meeting them, exclude them from falling into the category of living in error.
Let me ask you this, Mortalium: can those who have never received Holy Communion be saved?
-
Yes, it is. One would think that if Pius IX meant that the invincibly ignorant would not remain invincibly ignorant, that he would have said that. He was anything but ambiguous.
Or rather, you would think that. You are adding conclusions he never implied.
I read it and it is perfectly clear what he is saying.
You ignore the words “operating power of divine light and grace”. Well, the Bible verses clearly shows it means being illuminated by the light of the gospel. You have any problem with this?
And, considering the immense significance of someone being invincibly ignorant, it seems to reason that His Holiness of blessed memory would have clearly stated this significant change in the person from being invincibly ignorant to being miraculously not ignorant, and baptized with water by an angel, or some other extraordinary means.
What is the “operating power of divine light and grace”? To remain in invincible ignorance of Christ and the Gospel?
Instead, he acknowledges the existence of the invincibly ignorant (at least in 1863) and states that God will not punish them if they do not deliberately sing, observe the natural law and are ready to obey God.
Your conclusion, which simply ignores what he says.
Plus, your conclusion is the very heresy which he emphatically condemned numerous times, namely, that people can be saved "so long as morality is maintained."
Re: the article posted, written by Fr. Mueller. The objections in the article are not fit for this discussion, because I (nor do I think is anyone else) am not arguing that invincible ignorance is a means to salvation. That is God's grace and mercy, not a merit (or demerit) of man.
It definitely is. You are teaching the very thing Fr. Muller exposed the liberals tried to say Pius IX taught. And I did not say you said invincible ignorance is a means of salvation, now you are creating a diversion and switching your positions because you are saying Pope Pius IX taught that invincibly ignorant people can be saved by simply following the natural law and "being ready to obey God". Nice try though.
The principle of BOD/BOB/Invincible ignorance is not that man's salvation is an effect caused by his own action or state (in desiring baptism, dying for the faith before it, or being invincibly ignorant of it) but that his salvation comes about no differently than anyone else's: by the grace of God.
Strawmans and smoke and mirrors.
And we are not even getting into the fact that it is a dogma that those who die in original sin cannot be saved.
Compare your heretical interpretation of what Pope Pius IX said with what St. Leonard of Port Maurice said:
Ungrateful sinner, learn today that if you are damned, it is not God who is to blame, but you and your self-will. To persuade yourself of this, go down even to the depths of the abyss, and there I will bring you one of those wretched damned souls burning in hell, so that he may explain this truth to you. Here is one now: "Tell me, who are you?" "I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suf-fering now." "Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for." Another one is coming; there he is. "Who are you?" "I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God." "You are not the one I want; return to hell." Here is another. "And who are you?" "I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith." "It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell." Brothers, my heart is broken upon seeing these wretches who never even knew the True Faith among the damned. Even so, know that the sentence of condemnation was pronounced against them and they were told, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They were damned because they wanted to be. They received so many aids from God to be saved! We do not know what they were, but they know them well, and now they cry out, "O Lord, Thou art just... and Thy judgments are equitable."
Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid.
The Little Number of those who are saved.
-
No, no it's not. And they (the Dimond bros) even admit this later on in the same article, by acknowledging the qualifiers that Pius IX attaches to the paragraph in question (that the invincibly ignorant must observe the natural order, live honest lives, and be ready to co-operate with God). The very point of invincible ignorance as taught by Pius IX is that it only applies to those who meet these conditions, which upon meeting them, exclude them from falling into the category of living in error.
You obviosuly don't even believe in the Athanasian Creed.
"Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith, unless a man do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. ."
Or will you say like the heretical Vatican II, that this only applies to those who "knowing that the Church was divinely established, refuse to enter it"?
You obviously don't believe at all that you must explicitly believe in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved. You don't even believe you have to believe in Jesus to be saved.
You don't believe either than those who die in original sin cannot be saved.
Just because Pius IX did nor get into specific details about every little thing about this, does not mean he was teaching what you say. His words are quite clear as they stand and in no way teach what you think it does.
Furthermore Fr. Muller already refuted people like you who like to read into things.
Let me ask you this, Mortalium: can those who have never received Holy Communion be saved?
Yes.
And in case you bring it up, this is a necessity of precept, just like going to Mass is.
But unlike thoe Holy Eucharist, belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessity of means, NOT of precept:
Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”
-
Sure.
It is perfectly logical and not contradictory in the least to say that it is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION that you need to have water poured on you while the Trinitarian formula is recited, and then right away say that it is NOT necessary to have water poured on you or to recite the formula because desire sufices.
That's perfectly logical.
Again, way to twist my words to suit your gravely erroneous arguments to deny BOB/BOD! No Feeneyite can't imagine, I suppose, that someone on his way to baptism can suddenly die, either by accident or assassination, and still that person is saved, provided he truly wanted the Sacrament! I suppose then you call Archbishop Lefebvre a liberal, since he refused to baptize catechumens right away, because he said their desire sufficed.
-
Again, way to twist my words to suit your gravely erroneous arguments to deny BOB/BOD! No Feeneyite can't imagine, I suppose, that someone on his way to baptism can suddenly die, either by accident or assassination, and still that person is saved, provided he truly wanted the Sacrament! I suppose then you call Archbishop Lefebvre a liberal, since he refused to baptize catechumens right away, because he said their desire sufficed.
Sure.
"For a car to start and move, it is necessary to have gas in the tank, or the desire to have gas in the tank. Don't question me boy! It is presupposed that you would put gas in the tank if you could!"
No one like you can imagine, I suppose, that God is in control of everything, and that there are no accidents or coincidences, and He will rather perform a miracle and ensure the person is baptized, rather than let him die.
In fact, the reality is that there have already been miraculous baptisms, a rather uncomfortable fact for people like you. There have been people raised from the dead just to get baptized, and then die again.
-
No, your presumption is that there always must be a miraculous baptism. But then you see you make the saints liars who asserted many martyrs died so, even though they didn't receive water baptism! God isn't bound to water baptism to save men, though you and others denying BOD do so artificially. You might as well call St. John Vianney a liar too, since he specifically stated a converted Jew's mother died and was saved, despite apparently dying unrepentant, since the Mother of God personally interceded, without water baptism.
-
No, your presumption is that there always must be a miraculous baptism. But then you see you make the saints liars who asserted many martyrs died so, even though they didn't receive water baptism! God isn't bound to water baptism to save men, though you and others denying BOD do so artificially. You might as well call St. John Vianney a liar too, since he specifically stated a converted Jew's mother died and was saved, despite apparently dying unrepentant, since the Mother of God personally interceded, without water baptism.
The accounts of the martyrs who allegedly died without baptism are not clear enough, nor is there enough evidence to conclude they were not baptized, nor is it really known for sure at all whether they were or not, in all the accounts, as many other people have proved here. So it's useless to get into that.
I've heard about the St. John Vianney story too, and again, the same thing: not enough information and no complete certitude of all the facts.
The argument you make is basically protestant. "God is not bound by this or that. He can do everything."
By that logic, He can save people who are outside the Church, non-Catholic, un-baptized, in original sin, etc., which is the logical conclusion people like you fall into!
Slippery slope.
-
Sorry, hogwash. You just don't believe the Council of Trent when it states one must be baptized in fact or in desire to be saved. That's all there is to it! To state the Tridentine Catechism is wrong when it asserts catechumens are saved because their desire to receive baptism suffices is beyond chutpah to tell the truth!
The typical argument of "not enough data." More hogwash! There is enough data to know if a person martyred was or wasn't baptized. It seems to me you just joined this forum to spread the denial of even explicit BOD against the Council of Trent.
-
Sorry, hogwash. You just don't believe the Council of Trent when it states one must be baptized in fact or in desire to be saved. That's all there is to it! To state the Tridentine Catechism is wrong when it asserts catechumens are saved because their desire to receive baptism suffices is beyond chutpah to tell the truth!
The typical argument of "not enough data." More hogwash! There is enough data to know if a person martyred was or wasn't baptized. It seems to me you just joined this forum to spread the denial of even explicit BOD against the Council of Trent.
Go read my post in the other thread.
-
Sorry, hogwash. You just don't believe the Council of Trent when it states one must be baptized in fact or in desire to be saved. That's all there is to it! To state the Tridentine Catechism is wrong when it asserts catechumens are saved because their desire to receive baptism suffices is beyond chutpah to tell the truth!
The typical argument of "not enough data." More hogwash! There is enough data to know if a person martyred was or wasn't baptized. It seems to me you just joined this forum to spread the denial of even explicit BOD against the Council of Trent.
Go read my post in the other thread.
Posting quotes on the importance of baptism doesn't negate BOD, no matter how much you twist the words.
-
Sorry, hogwash. You just don't believe the Council of Trent when it states one must be baptized in fact or in desire to be saved. That's all there is to it! To state the Tridentine Catechism is wrong when it asserts catechumens are saved because their desire to receive baptism suffices is beyond chutpah to tell the truth!
The typical argument of "not enough data." More hogwash! There is enough data to know if a person martyred was or wasn't baptized. It seems to me you just joined this forum to spread the denial of even explicit BOD against the Council of Trent.
Go read my post in the other thread.
Posting quotes on the importance of baptism doesn't negate BOD, no matter how much you twist the words.
Hold on there. What words did i twist?
-
Careful not to start with the strawmen.
Pius IX taught:
"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 (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, no 7)."
Is he a heretic? Or is there a secret, hidden meaning where he means something opposite of what he wrote?
Mith,
The quote from Pope Pius IX is always used by those who support BOD, invincible ignorance and whatever other mode of salvation outside the Church they are defending for the simple reason that, like they do with Trent, they take it *completely* out of context.
That particular quote is always singled out in favor of salvation via invincible ignorance - but is done so while completely disregarding that which PPIX said prior too - and immediately after that quote.
Read the quote below from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in context this time and see that it now agrees completely with the dogma without any contradiction whatsoever. Study it for a bit if necessary in order to understand what the pope was teaching.
[Emphasis mine]
"It is necessary once more to mention and censure a very serious error into which some Catholics have unhappily fallen. They tend to accept the opinion that men who live in error and are estranged from the true faith and Catholic unity can attain eternal life. This notion is in direct opposition to orthodox teaching."
"We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been engraved by God in their hearts, and if they are disposed to obey God and lead good and upright lives, can be saved through divine light and grace, since God, Who sees, attends to, and penetrates the thoughts, yearnings, intentions, and dispositions of all men, would not, out of His supreme goodness and mercy allow anyone to suffer everlasting torments, who is innocent of all willful transgression."
'However, equally well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one whatsoever can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who perversely oppose the authority and teachings of that Church, and obstinately remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom the care of the vineyard was appointed by our Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."'
As Fr. Wathen puts it:
"Incredible to say, it is the sentence which is printed in bold [italic] letters, which is used as proof that the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is not a Catholic dogma, and this, when it is sandwiched between two explicit affirmations of this truth. The sentence can be used to deny the dogma only if it is lifted out of its context between these two affirmations, and deliberately misunderstood or mistranslated. What then does the passage say?" . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In his book; Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. then goes on and gives a thorough (as usual) and exhaustive break down of what Pope Pius IX was saying which perfectly agrees with the dogma without the slightest doubt.
-
Father Wathen's book has been, IMHO, been totally refuted by Is Feeneyism Catholic?, so I really wonder why he is used as a reference?!
-
Father Wathen's book has been, IMHO, been totally refuted by Is Feeneyism Catholic?, so I really wonder why he is used as a reference?!
I'm with Bowler - you just clog up the thread with nonsense.
-
Father Wathen's book has been, IMHO, been totally refuted by Is Feeneyism Catholic?, so I really wonder why he is used as a reference?!
And I wonder why you reference that joke of a "book". I must assume that you never read it. Is Feeneyism Catholic? was written by the SSPX's Fr. Laisney, yes the same person who is now writing lies and subterfuge against the Resistance. By his deeds you shall know him. That book is full of convenient omissions, errors, and downright lies, just like his current writings.
The book is a a masterpiece in deceit! It has so many omissions, errors, and lies that I could never find the time to post them here. Here's a thorough detailed response, go to pages 295-304.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
-
There is no contradiction. You need to understand that Baptism of water is the Sacrament, and Baptism of desire and blood are NOT the Sacraments....they only supply the grace of the Sacrament in rare cases.
Read this text from the article on Baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia from early 1900s:
X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood."
According to St. Thomas, “that is necessary without which something cannot be" Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 (Metaph. V).
So the Code says that both the Sacrament of Baptism "or at least the desire for it" are necessary unto all for salvation. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot be both true at the same time.
If I say that salvation cannot be without the sacrament, then obviously salvation CANNOT BE without the sacrament! And what is BOD but salvation without the sacrament?
And yes i have already read the encyclopedia, you dont need to quote it. It is infected with modernism.
Looking in the preface of the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will see over 1500 people globally contributed to writing it in the early 1900s. Among those 1500 people were bishops, priests, professors at Catholic universities, Catholic authors etc, and there was a large board of editors reviewing everything before approval. The Catholic Encyclopedia is imprimatured as well. So we have 1500 educated Catholics authoring it, and the magisterium of the Church has never condemned it, or any part of it, since it was published in 1913. Yet Mortalium on cathinfo, exactly 100 years later, knows better and has condemned it for all of us! If the Catholic Encyclopedia were infected with modernism, the solemn magisterium would have certainly made it known since then. Thanks for being more learned than those 1500 Catholics, and saving us all, Mortalium.
-
Looking in the preface of the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will see over 1500 people globally contributed to writing it in the early 1900s. Among those 1500 people were bishops, priests, professors at Catholic universities, Catholic authors etc, and there was a large board of editors reviewing everything before approval. The Catholic Encyclopedia is imprimatured as well. So we have 1500 educated Catholics authoring it, and the magisterium of the Church has never condemned it, or any part of it, since it was published in 1913. Yet Mortalium on cathinfo, exactly 100 years later, knows better and has condemned it for all of us! If the Catholic Encyclopedia were infected with modernism, the solemn magisterium would have certainly made it known since then. Thanks for being more learned than those 1500 Catholics, and saving us all, Mortalium.
What you said is dead wrong on many levels, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about or the facts.
-
Father Muller already refuted anything you may think you may have read into Pius IX's words well before you were even born.
No, you are the one accusing Pope Pius IX for teaching a heresy he never taught, just like Muller said.
I find it funny how you quote a Fr. Muller to support your opposition of BOD, as if anyone knows who he is, and as if what he says holds any weight next to all the quotes posted on baptismofdesire.com. FYI - The quotes supporting BOD/BOB on baptismofdesire.com span over 1800 years of the Church and are from the following:
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
Now you come along Mortalium, and give us quotes from Fr. Muller to try and oppose all of the above sources???? Talk about absurdity.
Think about it people; whenever we are all discussing other doctrinal issues in the Church, we are all typically content with a quote from a Pope or theologian to lay a matter to rest. However with BOB/BOD, quotes from the massive list of trustworthy Church references above is presented, and the Feeneyites look the other way for all of it, and remain obstinate to the end. There is no way any Feeneyite can claim innocence at their judgment for such blatant obstinacy.
-
Looking in the preface of the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will see over 1500 people globally contributed to writing it in the early 1900s. Among those 1500 people were bishops, priests, professors at Catholic universities, Catholic authors etc, and there was a large board of editors reviewing everything before approval. The Catholic Encyclopedia is imprimatured as well. So we have 1500 educated Catholics authoring it, and the magisterium of the Church has never condemned it, or any part of it, since it was published in 1913. Yet Mortalium on cathinfo, exactly 100 years later, knows better and has condemned it for all of us! If the Catholic Encyclopedia were infected with modernism, the solemn magisterium would have certainly made it known since then. Thanks for being more learned than those 1500 Catholics, and saving us all, Mortalium.
What you said is dead wrong on many levels, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about or the facts.
Mortalium, you really should check into things before you post. Please go read it for yourself on the Catholic Encyclopedia website. Here is the link directly to the page:
Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm)
-
Father Muller already refuted anything you may think you may have read into Pius IX's words well before you were even born.
No, you are the one accusing Pope Pius IX for teaching a heresy he never taught, just like Muller said.
I find it funny how you quote a Fr. Muller to support your opposition of BOD, as if anyone knows who he is, and as if what he says holds any weight next to all the quotes posted on baptismofdesire.com. FYI - The quotes supporting BOD/BOB on baptismofdesire.com span over 1800 years of the Church and are from the following:
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
Now you come along Mortalium, and give us quotes from Fr. Muller to try and oppose all of the above sources???? Talk about absurdity.
Think about it people; whenever we are all discussing other doctrinal issues in the Church, we are all typically content with a quote from a Pope or theologian to lay a matter to rest. However with BOB/BOD, quotes from the massive list of trustworthy Church references above is presented, and the Feeneyites look the other way for all of it, and remain obstinate to the end. There is no way any Feeneyite can claim innocence at their judgment for such blatant obstinacy.
All the saints, popes, bishops, theologians, fathers, priests, school teachers, mothers, students and doctors of the Church together cannot over ride defined dogma.
-
I find it funny how you quote a Fr. Muller to support your opposition of BOD, as if anyone knows who he is, and as if what he says holds any weight next to all the quotes posted on baptismofdesire.com. FYI - The quotes supporting BOD/BOB on baptismofdesire.com span over 1800 years of the Church and are from the following:
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
Now you come along Mortalium, and give us quotes from Fr. Muller to try and oppose all of the above sources???? Talk about absurdity.
Think about it people; whenever we are all discussing other doctrinal issues in the Church, we are all typically content with a quote from a Pope or theologian to lay a matter to rest. However with BOB/BOD, quotes from the massive list of trustworthy Church references above is presented, and the Feeneyites look the other way for all of it, and remain obstinate to the end. There is no way any Feeneyite can claim innocence at their judgment for such blatant obstinacy.
Hey,
who are you, really? And where are you? What are your theological positions regarding the Church right now?
You sound and look like a troll.
And i already said i take back what i said regarding the baptisms. I don't oppose them anymore.
And what I quoted about Fr. Muller was regarding invincible ignorance, NOT the baptisms.
"as if anyone knows who he is, and as if what he says holds any weight next to all the quotes posted on baptismofdesire.com."
Now that's funny.
-
Father Muller already refuted anything you may think you may have read into Pius IX's words well before you were even born.
No, you are the one accusing Pope Pius IX for teaching a heresy he never taught, just like Muller said.
I find it funny how you quote a Fr. Muller to support your opposition of BOD, as if anyone knows who he is, and as if what he says holds any weight next to all the quotes posted on baptismofdesire.com. FYI - The quotes supporting BOD/BOB on baptismofdesire.com span over 1800 years of the Church and are from the following:
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
Now you come along Mortalium, and give us quotes from Fr. Muller to try and oppose all of the above sources???? Talk about absurdity.
Think about it people; whenever we are all discussing other doctrinal issues in the Church, we are all typically content with a quote from a Pope or theologian to lay a matter to rest. However with BOB/BOD, quotes from the massive list of trustworthy Church references above is presented, and the Feeneyites look the other way for all of it, and remain obstinate to the end. There is no way any Feeneyite can claim innocence at their judgment for such blatant obstinacy.
All the saints, popes, bishops, theologians, fathers, priests, school teachers, mothers, students and doctors of the Church together cannot over ride defined dogma.
You need to learn how Catholicism works. The First Vatican Council mandated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Solemn judgment consists of popes and Councils, and the ordinary and universal magisterium consists of all other Church teaching by Saints, popes, bishops, theologians etc. Together they form one infallible magisterium. If an error creeps into the ordinary magisterium, the solemn magisterium corrects it. This is Church teaching and always has been. Go look it up. The list of references above are all unanimous and part of the ordinary magisterium.
-
Moreover, "Feeneyism" has nothing at all to do with the baptisms; Father Feeney was preaching that there was no salvation outside the Church because the heretics of his time were attacking the dogma.
So when you say you oppose "Feeneyism", you attack the dogma of no salvation outside the Church because THAT is what Fr. Feeney was teaching. It had nothing to do with the baptisms.
-
You need to learn how Catholicism works. The First Vatican Council mandated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Solemn judgment consists of popes and Councils, and the ordinary and universal magisterium consists of all other Church teaching by Saints, popes, bishops, theologians etc. Together they form one infallible magisterium. If an error creeps into the ordinary magisterium, the solemn magisterium corrects it. This is Church teaching and always has been. Go look it up.
I could not agree more. But BOD contradicts dogma so we cannot believe in it.
Certainly then you would agree whole heartedly with this from LG:
Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
-
You need to learn how Catholicism works. The First Vatican Council mandated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Solemn judgment consists of popes and Councils, and the ordinary and universal magisterium consists of all other Church teaching by Saints, popes, bishops, theologians etc. Together they form one infallible magisterium. If an error creeps into the ordinary magisterium, the solemn magisterium corrects it. This is Church teaching and always has been. Go look it up.
I could not agree more. But BOD contradicts dogma so we cannot believe in it.
Certainly then you would agree whole heartedly with this from LG:
Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted. This by the definition of the First Vatican Council is the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible, and we must believe it.
If BOD/BOB contradicted dogma, the solemn magisterium (popes or councils) would have condemned BOD/BOB, or the sources that teach it.
An example from baptismofdesire.com: There have been over 70 Popes since Baptism of Desire was written about in the Summa Theologica in the 13th century, yet neither the Summa Theologica nor the writing on Baptism of Desire in the Summa Theologica were ever condemned by those 70+ Popes. Why? Did those 70+ popes not notice the error???
-
You need to learn how Catholicism works. The First Vatican Council mandated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Solemn judgment consists of popes and Councils, and the ordinary and universal magisterium consists of all other Church teaching by Saints, popes, bishops, theologians etc. Together they form one infallible magisterium. If an error creeps into the ordinary magisterium, the solemn magisterium corrects it. This is Church teaching and always has been. Go look it up.
I could not agree more. But BOD contradicts dogma so we cannot believe in it.
Certainly then you would agree whole heartedly with this from LG:
Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted. This by the definition of the First Vatican Council is the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible, and we must believe it.
If BOD/BOB contradicted dogma, the solemn magisterium (popes or councils) would have condemned BOD/BOB, or the sources that teach it.
An example from baptismofdesire.com: There have been over 70 Popes since Baptism of Desire was written about in the Summa Theologica in the 13th century, yet neither the Summa Theologica nor the writing on Baptism of Desire in the Summa Theologica were ever condemned by those 70+ Popes. Why? Did those 70+ popes not notice the error???
The teaching must be constant and universal, which BOD is not, only the Sacrament enjoys that honor - fyi. "Constant" means since the time of the Apostles. The teaching must agree with de fide declarations - that is where you are screwing up your thinking. You think it's the other way around in spite of being proven otherwise numerous times already.
You are denying that which is certainly without the possibility of error while believing that which is error prone - and is so obviously as has already been proven to you.
The website is a disaster because it promotes salvation outside the Church and you are one of it's many victims who does not believe that water is a necessity for baptism and baptism is a necessity be in the Church - you therefore deny the dogma because you believe that there is salvation outside the Church as LG, the "magisterium" wrongfully dictates.
-
Again, way to twist my words to suit your gravely erroneous arguments to deny BOB/BOD! No Feeneyite can't imagine, I suppose, that someone on his way to baptism can suddenly die, either by accident or assassination, and still that person is saved, provided he truly wanted the Sacrament! I suppose then you call Archbishop Lefebvre a liberal, since he refused to baptize catechumens right away, because he said their desire sufficed.
Sure.
"For a car to start and move, it is necessary to have gas in the tank, or the desire to have gas in the tank. Don't question me boy! It is presupposed that you would put gas in the tank if you could!"
No one like you can imagine, I suppose, that God is in control of everything, and that there are no accidents or coincidences, and He will rather perform a miracle and ensure the person is baptized, rather than let him die.
In fact, the reality is that there have already been miraculous baptisms, a rather uncomfortable fact for people like you. There have been people raised from the dead just to get baptized, and then die again.
No one denies that there have been miraculous baptisms, Proso.
That doesn't mean BOD isn't true, however.
-
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted.
I can't find any "large list of references already posted".
-
Again, way to twist my words to suit your gravely erroneous arguments to deny BOB/BOD! No Feeneyite can't imagine, I suppose, that someone on his way to baptism can suddenly die, either by accident or assassination, and still that person is saved, provided he truly wanted the Sacrament! I suppose then you call Archbishop Lefebvre a liberal, since he refused to baptize catechumens right away, because he said their desire sufficed.
Sure.
"For a car to start and move, it is necessary to have gas in the tank, or the desire to have gas in the tank. Don't question me boy! It is presupposed that you would put gas in the tank if you could!"
No one like you can imagine, I suppose, that God is in control of everything, and that there are no accidents or coincidences, and He will rather perform a miracle and ensure the person is baptized, rather than let him die.
In fact, the reality is that there have already been miraculous baptisms, a rather uncomfortable fact for people like you. There have been people raised from the dead just to get baptized, and then die again.
No one denies that there have been miraculous baptisms, Proso.
That doesn't mean BOD isn't true, however.
It's certainly something else to also look at. Why would God raise so many docuмented people from the dead till even our times, AND also keep people hanging on to life for weeks only to die one second after being baptized (American Indian missionaries accounts, & St. Francis Xavier), why would God show us that if baptism of desire, implicit faith would have saved them anyways? Moreover, why not one docuмented revelation of a person saved by BOD? There should be 100's of examples of BOD, yet not a one has ever been sent back from the dead so as to be able to go straight to heaven. It certainly is something to think about and add to the list of evidence against BOD.
-
You need to learn how Catholicism works. The First Vatican Council mandated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Solemn judgment consists of popes and Councils, and the ordinary and universal magisterium consists of all other Church teaching by Saints, popes, bishops, theologians etc. Together they form one infallible magisterium. If an error creeps into the ordinary magisterium, the solemn magisterium corrects it. This is Church teaching and always has been. Go look it up. The list of references above are all unanimous and part of the ordinary magisterium.
This is all "wishy-washy"; what, exactly, are you accusing the Saint Benedict Centers in Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire of? Which heresies are they adhering to? Name those heresies. In particular, list those sentences in the Bread of Life which you believe to be heretical. And, finally, explain why a Catholic bishop is giving the Sacraments to public heretics, if you believe the followers of Father Feeney to be such. And, explain why Father Feeney received a public Mass of Christian Burial by his bishop if he was a public heretic.
-
saintboco13, answer my questions please.
Hey,
who are you, really? And where are you? What are your theological positions regarding the Church right now?
You sound and look like a troll.
And i already said i take back what i said regarding the baptisms. I don't oppose them anymore.
And what I quoted about Fr. Muller was regarding invincible ignorance, NOT the baptisms.
-
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted. This by the definition of the First Vatican Council is the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible, and we must believe it.
If BOD/BOB contradicted dogma, the solemn magisterium (popes or councils) would have condemned BOD/BOB, or the sources that teach it.
An example from baptismofdesire.com: There have been over 70 Popes since Baptism of Desire was written about in the Summa Theologica in the 13th century, yet neither the Summa Theologica nor the writing on Baptism of Desire in the Summa Theologica were ever condemned by those 70+ Popes. Why? Did those 70+ popes not notice the error???
The teaching must be constant and universal, which BOD is not, only the Sacrament enjoys that honor - fyi. "Constant" means since the time of the Apostles. The teaching must agree with de fide declarations - that is where you are screwing up your thinking. You think it's the other way around in spite of being proven otherwise numerous times already.
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. So what you are saying is all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references quoted on baptismofdesire.com that are promoting the threefold baptism, are all promoting new doctrine????? If that were the case, all of those sources would be condemned by the Church as erroneous. Why has not ONE of these sources been condemned?????
The website is a disaster because it promotes salvation outside the Church and you are one of it's many victims who does not believe that water is a necessity for baptism and baptism is a necessity be in the Church - you therefore deny the dogma because you believe that there is salvation outside the Church as LG, the "magisterium" wrongfully dictates.
On the contrary, the website you refer to as a disaster simply presents quotes from Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references, all in support of the threefold baptism. I am simply the messenger. So let's be clear on this, it is not me you are accusing of promoting salvation outside the Church, but these trusted Church sources that you are accusing. That's quite a claim to make and puts you in a very serious situation.
-
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted.
I can't find any "large list of references already posted".
Here is the list, which was mentioned earlier in the thread. All of these sources are quoted on baptismofdesire.com as supporting the threefold baptism.
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
-
saintbosco13,
you haven't answered yet.
-
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:
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
-
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:
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 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.)
-
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:
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!
-
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:
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!
The problem is you are using Wiki and it appears you have read their presentation of Ott as saying all things less than defined dogmas are mere opinions. This is wrong, and if you actually read Ott you'd see this!
-
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted.
I can't find any "large list of references already posted".
Here is the list, which was mentioned earlier in the thread. All of these sources are quoted on baptismofdesire.com as supporting the threefold baptism.
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
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.
-
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.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
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.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
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.
-
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:
So are you trying to say that all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references are all only giving theological opinions on Baptism?????? Please let us know where the Church says these are theological opinions - the faithful would certainly be told that was the case, so they would know what other opinions they could also believe.
It's absolutely absurd to think such a critical doctrine, deciding whether someone is saved or not, would be left to the faithful as opinion throughout the entire history of the Church. As though the Church would tell the faithful, "You could be saved this way, but it's possible you may not be saved this way, and we are going to leave you guessing". Give me a break.
-
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.
-
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:
So are you trying to say that all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references are all only giving theological opinions on Baptism?????? Please let us know where the Church says these are theological opinions - the faithful would certainly be told that was the case, so they would know what other opinions they could also believe.
It's absolutely absurd to think such a critical doctrine, deciding whether someone is saved or not, would be left to the faithful as opinion throughout the entire history of the Church. As though the Church would tell the faithful, "You could be saved this way, but it's possible you may not be saved this way, and we are going to leave you guessing". Give me a break.
Ultimately, that authority is for the Magisterium alone to decide. The 1983 Code of Canon Law defines schism as:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
You have simply refused to answer over and over why a Roman Catholic Bishop, His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManus, is giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to heretics:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/monastery/news-blog/486-summer-fall2012.html
If you want to charge Father Feeney with heresy and/or his followers, then you must name their heresy (or heresies). Here is a good place to start:
http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc
The guy is a priest in good standing with Rome, so, hopefully, he has his facts straight:
http://holyjoe.org/
-
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.
You are all mixed up. You have to decide and tell us what you believe, for I don't think you know what you believe. According to the theory of Implicit Faith, Jew in invincible ignorance can know and reject the Trinity and Christ and still be saved.
Invincible ignorance and Implicit Fatith were NEVER taught by any Father, Saint, or Council. Moreover, ignorance has always been rejected by the Fathers and Saints, and no Father or Saint has ever taught that a Jew, Pagan or Heretic can be saved!
Invincible Ignorance and Implicit Faith (tag team) is a novelty. Again, it is hypocritical to say that you follow apostolic tradition when you say you believe in Invincible ignorance and Implict Faith.
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 all mixed up. You have to decide and tell us what you believe, for I don't think you know what you believe. According to the theory of Implicit Faith, Jew in invincible ignorance can know and reject the Trinity and Christ and still be saved.
Invincible ignorance and Implicit Fatith were NEVER taught by any Father, Saint, or Council. Moreover, ignorance has always been rejected by the Fathers and Saints, and no Father or Saint has ever taught that a Jew, Pagan or Heretic can be saved!
Invincible Ignorance and Implicit Faith (tag team) is a novelty. Again, it is hypocritical to say that you follow apostolic tradition when you say you believe in Invincible ignorance and Implict Faith.
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."
-
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.
Posting millions of quotes that baptism is required is not helping this discussion. These quotes have all been seen before and no one is denying that baptism is required of us. You are having a mental block. As posted earlier in this discussion, baptism of water is the Sacrament, and is clearly required. However the Church has ALSO unanimously taught throughout it's entire history (as the quotes on baptismofdesire.com show) that there are 2 scenarios (that are not sacraments) that supply the grace of that Sacrament of Baptism. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states under the article on Baptism:
"If it be said that this doctrine (baptism of desire) contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John, iii), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John, xiv) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ."
This quote exactly supports all of the other quotes mentioned. Feeneyites remind me of Protestants who repeatedly whine that we MUST have faith to be saved. And Catholics reply that Scripture also teaches good works are a necessity. Then the Protestant continually replies that it is only faith, ignoring the rest of scriptural quotes on good works. We need to look at the whole picture.
-
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."
1- Pope Pius IX did not teach implicit faith there,
2- That catechism was named after Pope St. Pius X but he himself had nothing to do with it, so quit attributing it to him,
3- You still havent answered any of my questions.
-
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."
First off, I already posted that you are taking Quanto Conficiamur COMPLETELY out of context. COMPLETELY.
Do you understand that when you do such a thing that you are distorting, adulterating, spreading scandal and denying a defined dogma which Holy Mother the Church binds us to believe under pain of mortal sin?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? Do you understand how serious that is? This is why the website is a disaster - use yourself as an example of how it leads people away from what the Church has always taught.
You can ignore the teaching all you wish, you can read all every saint and father of the Church had to say in support of BOD - but the matter has been settled infallibly, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, why do you reject the dogma? Do you *want* to be anathema?
Read what is certainly without the possibility of error - you can have no valid argument against the dogma.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone say] 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
-
You can ignore the teaching all you wish, you can read all every saint and father of the Church had to say in support of BOD - but the matter has been settled infallibly, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, why do you reject the dogma? Do you *want* to be anathema?
Read what is certainly without the possibility of error - you can have no valid argument against the dogma.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone say] 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
So then, by logic and necessity, bod/bob are heretical, and anyone who believes in them is a heretic, and all the ones who taught it after Trent are heretics too.
-
You can ignore the teaching all you wish, you can read all every saint and father of the Church had to say in support of BOD - but the matter has been settled infallibly, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, why do you reject the dogma? Do you *want* to be anathema?
Read what is certainly without the possibility of error - you can have no valid argument against the dogma.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone say] 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
So then, by logic and necessity, bod/bob are heretical, and anyone who believes in them is a heretic, and all the ones who taught it after Trent are heretics too.
I think it is one thing to deny the dogma via being duped by the heresy of Liberalism, which teaches the denial of exclusive salvation - as the website certainly does - it is quite another to have the facts of the heresy of salvation outside the Church clearly pointed out, yet remain completely obtuse about it.
It seems obvious that whoever believes a baptism of desire can replace the sacrament for salvation must be as guilty of heresy as one who denies the dogma of the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception.
In one of his recordings, Fr. says that it is common to have theological debates go on between the Church and Her learned theologians - sometimes for centuries - before the pope steps in and closes the matter for all time via a solemn declaration - and this one was closed a very long time ago. . . . . . and if we ever get another pope to pronounce another solemn declaration on the matter, all he will be able to do is repeat that which has already been declared.
-
This quote exactly supports all of the other quotes mentioned. Feeneyites remind me of Protestants who repeatedly whine that we MUST have faith to be saved. And Catholics reply that Scripture also teaches good works are a necessity. Then the Protestant continually replies that it is only faith, ignoring the rest of scriptural quotes on good works. We need to look at the whole picture.
You need to look at this:
http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html
And, while you are at it, please answer my previous questions or stop your persistent calumny against "Feeneyites".
-
You are all mixed up. You have to decide and tell us what you believe, for I don't think you know what you believe. According to the theory of Implicit Faith, Jew in invincible ignorance can know and reject the Trinity and Christ and still be saved.
Invincible ignorance and Implicit Fatith were NEVER taught by any Father, Saint, or Council. Moreover, ignorance has always been rejected by the Fathers and Saints, and no Father or Saint has ever taught that a Jew, Pagan or Heretic can be saved!
Invincible Ignorance and Implicit Faith (tag team) is a novelty. Again, it is hypocritical to say that you follow apostolic tradition when you say you believe in Invincible ignorance and Implict Faith.
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."
Your response in no way negates what I wrote:
Invincible ignorance and Implicit Fatith were NEVER taught by any Father, Saint, or Council. Moreover, ignorance has always been rejected by the Fathers and Saints, and no Father or Saint has ever taught that a Jew, Pagan or Heretic can be saved!
Invincible Ignorance and Implicit Faith (tag team) is a novelty. Again, it is hypocritical to say that you follow apostolic tradition when you say you believe in Invincible ignorance and Implict Faith.
-
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.
Posting millions of quotes that baptism is required is not helping this discussion. These quotes have all been seen before and no one is denying that baptism is required of us. You are having a mental block. As posted earlier in this discussion, baptism of water is the Sacrament, and is clearly required. However the Church has ALSO unanimously taught throughout it's entire history (as the quotes on baptismofdesire.com show) that there are 2 scenarios (that are not sacraments) that supply the grace of that Sacrament of Baptism. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states under the article on Baptism:
"If it be said that this doctrine (baptism of desire) contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John, iii), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John, xiv) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ."
This quote exactly supports all of the other quotes mentioned. Feeneyites remind me of Protestants who repeatedly whine that we MUST have faith to be saved. And Catholics reply that Scripture also teaches good works are a necessity. Then the Protestant continually replies that it is only faith, ignoring the rest of scriptural quotes on good works. We need to look at the whole picture.
It is you who is in denial. The quotes that I posted are directly about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, and not about just that "baptism is required". You have posted not one quote that clearly shows a Father teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen.
The Fathers were unanimous in teaching that even a catechumen with explicit desire to be baptized, could not be saved without the water. MOREOVER, there does not exist one single father that taught anything that could even remotely be construed to mean that anyone but a catechumen with explicit desire could be saved!
On top of all of that, in truth, you don't care what the Fathers taught, what St. Thomas and the Thomists taught, or what the Saints taught, for you believe in the Implicit Faith & Invincible ignorance tag team! You are no traditionalist, you are a liberal modernist.
-
You can ignore the teaching all you wish, you can read all every saint and father of the Church had to say in support of BOD - but the matter has been settled infallibly, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, why do you reject the dogma? Do you *want* to be anathema?
Read what is certainly without the possibility of error - you can have no valid argument against the dogma.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone say] 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
So then, by logic and necessity, bod/bob are heretical, and anyone who believes in them is a heretic, and all the ones who taught it after Trent are heretics too.
Mortalium, you have already embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread by posting things showing you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility on this topic and need to learn it before you can debate it.
This is not rocket science. Baptismofdesire.com provides quotes From trusted Church sources supporting the threefold baptism throughout the entire history of the Church. These quotes are either all in error, or they are all true. It's one or the other. If the quotes are all in error, then we would see plenty of declarations from the Church stating so over the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church did not hesitate to name Arius and Arianism by name, very specifically declaring him and his teaching to be heretical. Same applies to Nestorius, Donatus, Macedonius, Luther, Dollinger and on and on. This is the job of the solemn magisterium, guided by the Holy Ghost so that the Church cannot fall into error - it very specifically names and condemns heretics and heresies so that the Church can remain error-free and never fallen to failure. The diagram on baptismofdesire.com shows this very clearly, yet no one would dare comment on that!
Since it is the job of the solemn magisterium to specifically define sources which are heretical, why then do we see Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Cyril, St. John Chrystostome, St. Ambrose, Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XII all openly supporting the threefold baptism over a period of 1800 years, and not a single condemnation of any of them? Same question applies to the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law, and A Catholic Dictionary; why do they openly teach baptism of desire and blood without a single condemnation from the Church? If these sources were indeed heresy, we would see Rome flooded with letters of objection from bishops all over the world, for centuries. We would see written condemnations of all of them, by name, just as the Church has always done with others such as Arius and Luther and others mentioned above. Yet, we do not see a single condemnation throughout the entire history of the Church. Feeneyites are continually asked why this is, and are asked for a single example of condemnation of any source that teaches the threefold baptism, yet they fall silent every time. That includes the Dimond Brothers, the Kings of Feeneyism, who fall silent again and again on questions like this.
Should we assume all the sources mentioned were in error all of these centuries, but no one noticed? It is an absolute embarrassment and heresy in itself to say all the sources in question have all been in error throughout all 20 centuries of the Church, and the Holy Ghost did not prevent it. To say so would be a direct denial of infallibility of the Church. Show us the condemnations people, show us even a single one, otherwise you have no business declaring a condemnation yourself.
-
Unfortunately, the best the people denying BOB/BOD can do is cite docuмents showing the necessity of Baptism, but then twisting the interpretation to mean only water Baptism can save and, some going to the extreme, condemn those believing BOB/BOD as heretical. If that is the case, then they call St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, the compilers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (among whom was St. Charles Borromeo, prime mover for the successful ending of the Council) heretics! St. Charles was no fool; he upheld the necessity of baptism. Yet we are to believe just a few years after, he became a heretic by writing that catechumens are saved when they die before baptism, provided it was no fault of their own and they had a true desire to receive the sacrament, in the Tridentine Catechism! St. Pius V, too, would fall under being a heretic, since he approved the Catechism as well! Which is absurd!
It's unfortunate Mortalium has an unstable foundation; he seems to be easily swayed from one position to another. A few days ago, he agreed BOB/BOD wasn't wrong; but then seeing Stubborn's quote, he jumped to the complete opposite, ignoring the various saintly theologians upholding BOB/BOD.
EDIT: I'm assuming the one marking me down is a Dimond brother fan?
-
Unfortunately, the best the people denying BOB/BOD can do is cite docuмents showing the necessity of Baptism, but then twisting the interpretation to mean only water Baptism can save and, some going to the extreme, condemn those believing BOB/BOD as heretical. If that is the case, then they call St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, the compilers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (among whom was St. Charles Borromeo, prime mover for the successful ending of the Council) heretics! St. Charles was no fool; he upheld the necessity of baptism. Yet we are to believe just a few years after, he became a heretic by writing that catechumens are saved when they die before baptism, provided it was no fault of their own and they had a true desire to receive the sacrament, in the Tridentine Catechism! St. Pius V, too, would fall under being a heretic, since he approved the Catechism as well! Which is absurd!
It's unfortunate Mortalium has an unstable foundation; he seems to be easily swayed from one position to another. A few days ago, he agreed BOB/BOD wasn't wrong; but then seeing Stubborn's quote, he jumped to the complete opposite, ignoring the various saintly theologians upholding BOB/BOD.
EDIT: I'm assuming the one marking me down is a Dimond brother fan?
Your opinions again, with no authoritative proof. Why shpuld anyone take your word for anything? Or mine for that matter? Quote CLEAR saints, doctors, and doctrine!
-
Unfortunately, the best the people denying BOB/BOD can do is cite docuмents showing the necessity of Baptism, but then twisting the interpretation to mean only water Baptism can save and, some going to the extreme, condemn those believing BOB/BOD as heretical. If that is the case, then they call St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, the compilers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (among whom was St. Charles Borromeo, prime mover for the successful ending of the Council) heretics! St. Charles was no fool; he upheld the necessity of baptism. Yet we are to believe just a few years after, he became a heretic by writing that catechumens are saved when they die before baptism, provided it was no fault of their own and they had a true desire to receive the sacrament, in the Tridentine Catechism! St. Pius V, too, would fall under being a heretic, since he approved the Catechism as well! Which is absurd!
It's unfortunate Mortalium has an unstable foundation; he seems to be easily swayed from one position to another. A few days ago, he agreed BOB/BOD wasn't wrong; but then seeing Stubborn's quote, he jumped to the complete opposite, ignoring the various saintly theologians upholding BOB/BOD.
EDIT: I'm assuming the one marking me down is a Dimond brother fan?
I am a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, a devout follower of Father Feeney, and I do not deny either Baptism of Desire and/or Blood.
-
I was being sarcastic and begging the question to Stubborn. I didn't change my now non-opposition to bod/bob.
I asked him what i wouldv'e asked myself; i just tried to make him see why he is wrong.
-Mortalium
-
Mortalium, you have already embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread by posting things showing you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility on this topic and need to learn it before you can debate it.
This is not rocket science. Baptismofdesire.com provides quotes From trusted Church sources supporting the threefold baptism throughout the entire history of the Church. These quotes are either all in error, or they are all true. It's one or the other. If the quotes are all in error, then we would see plenty of declarations from the Church stating so over the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church did not hesitate to name Arius and Arianism by name, very specifically declaring him and his teaching to be heretical. Same applies to Nestorius, Donatus, Macedonius, Luther, Dollinger and on and on. This is the job of the solemn magisterium, guided by the Holy Ghost so that the Church cannot fall into error - it very specifically names and condemns heretics and heresies so that the Church can remain error-free and never fallen to failure. The diagram on baptismofdesire.com shows this very clearly, yet no one would dare comment on that!
Since it is the job of the solemn magisterium to specifically define sources which are heretical, why then do we see Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Cyril, St. John Chrystostome, St. Ambrose, Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XII all openly supporting the threefold baptism over a period of 1800 years, and not a single condemnation of any of them? Same question applies to the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law, and A Catholic Dictionary; why do they openly teach baptism of desire and blood without a single condemnation from the Church? If these sources were indeed heresy, we would see Rome flooded with letters of objection from bishops all over the world, for centuries. We would see written condemnations of all of them, by name, just as the Church has always done with others such as Arius and Luther and others mentioned above. Yet, we do not see a single condemnation throughout the entire history of the Church. Feeneyites are continually asked why this is, and are asked for a single example of condemnation of any source that teaches the threefold baptism, yet they fall silent every time. That includes the Dimond Brothers, the Kings of Feeneyism, who fall silent again and again on questions like this.
Should we assume all the sources mentioned were in error all of these centuries, but no one noticed? It is an absolute embarrassment and heresy in itself to say all the sources in question have all been in error throughout all 20 centuries of the Church, and the Holy Ghost did not prevent it. To say so would be a direct denial of infallibility of the Church. Show us the condemnations people, show us even a single one, otherwise you have no business declaring a condemnation yourself.
You're just a troll who apparently doesn't even read other people's posts.
In case you missed it, here it is again: I no longer reject or oppose bod/bob. This was a few days ago.
And you still haven't answered my questions.
-Mortalium
-
Unfortunately, the best the people denying BOB/BOD can do is cite docuмents showing the necessity of Baptism, but then twisting the interpretation to mean only water Baptism can save and, some going to the extreme, condemn those believing BOB/BOD as heretical.
Herein lies the problem. You believe that infallibly defined declarations to be only "docuмents" but the teachings of the fathers to be infallible. If that were the case then there would be no need for infallible declarations!
The CCC #846 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) teaches that defined dogma is only an "old wives tale" by saying that dogma is only an "affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers".
Then to twist the dogma into something completely and totally meaningless, the CCC re-formulates it - and the CCC does not even hide the fact that they reformulated it because they say so right in the catechism (see link above).
What this *should* tell the entire world is that in order for the Dogma to be interpreted to mean those outside the Church can be saved via BOB/BOD, the dogma *must be re-formulated* i.e. it's meaning twisted.
All this means is that it is those who attempt to use defined dogma to justify bob/bod are the ones guilty of twisting the meaning of defined dogma, not those who absolutely accept the dogma for what it says absolutely.
It's unfortunate Mortalium has an unstable foundation; he seems to be easily swayed from one position to another. A few days ago, he agreed BOB/BOD wasn't wrong; but then seeing Stubborn's quote, he jumped to the complete opposite, ignoring the various saintly theologians upholding BOB/BOD.
I would change my mind without hesitation is a second about bob/bod if I found out I was wrong - but the matter has been decided infallibly so that option does not exist - it has nothing to do with being "easily swayed" - it has everything to do with accepting the truth when you find it rather than blinding yourself to it.
Like you I did not see he was sarcastic and was under the impression Moratalium believed in the dogma of exclusive salvation and was asking a sincere question.
BTW, the quote (dogma) I posted says what it says, right there in black and white and is guaranteed to be without the possibility of error - why does no one claim Trent to be wrong?
Do BODers propose Trent had nothing better to do that day then to come up with an old wives tale that would have need of re-formulation or was Trent only ignorant of what some of the church fathers taught regarding bob/bod?
Or do they propose that Trent was incapable of saying what they meant to say clearly?
Or was Trent, already well aware that in order for the dogma to be understood correctly that the dogma would be re-formulated anyway so they did not elaborate?
-
You can ignore the teaching all you wish, you can read all every saint and father of the Church had to say in support of BOD - but the matter has been settled infallibly, the sacrament is necessary for salvation, why do you reject the dogma? Do you *want* to be anathema?
Read what is certainly without the possibility of error - you can have no valid argument against the dogma.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone say] 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
So then, by logic and necessity, bod/bob are heretical, and anyone who believes in them is a heretic, and all the ones who taught it after Trent are heretics too.
Mortalium, you have already embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread by posting things showing you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility on this topic and need to learn it before you can debate it.
This is not rocket science. Baptismofdesire.com provides quotes From trusted Church sources supporting the threefold baptism throughout the entire history of the Church. These quotes are either all in error, or they are all true. It's one or the other. If the quotes are all in error, then we would see plenty of declarations from the Church stating so over the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church did not hesitate to name Arius and Arianism by name, very specifically declaring him and his teaching to be heretical. Same applies to Nestorius, Donatus, Macedonius, Luther, Dollinger and on and on. This is the job of the solemn magisterium, guided by the Holy Ghost so that the Church cannot fall into error - it very specifically names and condemns heretics and heresies so that the Church can remain error-free and never fallen to failure. The diagram on baptismofdesire.com shows this very clearly, yet no one would dare comment on that!
Since it is the job of the solemn magisterium to specifically define sources which are heretical, why then do we see Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Cyril, St. John Chrystostome, St. Ambrose, Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XII all openly supporting the threefold baptism over a period of 1800 years, and not a single condemnation of any of them? Same question applies to the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law, and A Catholic Dictionary; why do they openly teach baptism of desire and blood without a single condemnation from the Church? If these sources were indeed heresy, we would see Rome flooded with letters of objection from bishops all over the world, for centuries. We would see written condemnations of all of them, by name, just as the Church has always done with others such as Arius and Luther and others mentioned above. Yet, we do not see a single condemnation throughout the entire history of the Church. Feeneyites are continually asked why this is, and are asked for a single example of condemnation of any source that teaches the threefold baptism, yet they fall silent every time. That includes the Dimond Brothers, the Kings of Feeneyism, who fall silent again and again on questions like this.
Should we assume all the sources mentioned were in error all of these centuries, but no one noticed? It is an absolute embarrassment and heresy in itself to say all the sources in question have all been in error throughout all 20 centuries of the Church, and the Holy Ghost did not prevent it. To say so would be a direct denial of infallibility of the Church. Show us the condemnations people, show us even a single one, otherwise you have no business declaring a condemnation yourself.
Since you seem to know what it is, define the heresy of "Feeneyism".
While you are at it, define Baptism of Blood.
-
Mortalium, you have already embarrassed yourself multiple times in this thread by posting things showing you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility on this topic and need to learn it before you can debate it.
This is not rocket science. Baptismofdesire.com provides quotes From trusted Church sources supporting the threefold baptism throughout the entire history of the Church. These quotes are either all in error, or they are all true. It's one or the other. If the quotes are all in error, then we would see plenty of declarations from the Church stating so over the last 2000 years. The Catholic Church did not hesitate to name Arius and Arianism by name, very specifically declaring him and his teaching to be heretical. Same applies to Nestorius, Donatus, Macedonius, Luther, Dollinger and on and on. This is the job of the solemn magisterium, guided by the Holy Ghost so that the Church cannot fall into error - it very specifically names and condemns heretics and heresies so that the Church can remain error-free and never fallen to failure. The diagram on baptismofdesire.com shows this very clearly, yet no one would dare comment on that!
Since it is the job of the solemn magisterium to specifically define sources which are heretical, why then do we see Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Cyril, St. John Chrystostome, St. Ambrose, Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XII all openly supporting the threefold baptism over a period of 1800 years, and not a single condemnation of any of them? Same question applies to the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law, and A Catholic Dictionary; why do they openly teach baptism of desire and blood without a single condemnation from the Church? If these sources were indeed heresy, we would see Rome flooded with letters of objection from bishops all over the world, for centuries. We would see written condemnations of all of them, by name, just as the Church has always done with others such as Arius and Luther and others mentioned above. Yet, we do not see a single condemnation throughout the entire history of the Church. Feeneyites are continually asked why this is, and are asked for a single example of condemnation of any source that teaches the threefold baptism, yet they fall silent every time. That includes the Dimond Brothers, the Kings of Feeneyism, who fall silent again and again on questions like this.
Should we assume all the sources mentioned were in error all of these centuries, but no one noticed? It is an absolute embarrassment and heresy in itself to say all the sources in question have all been in error throughout all 20 centuries of the Church, and the Holy Ghost did not prevent it. To say so would be a direct denial of infallibility of the Church. Show us the condemnations people, show us even a single one, otherwise you have no business declaring a condemnation yourself.
The typical silence. Any of you Feeneyites ready to take your heads out of the sand and address this point? Why are there no condemnations throughout the entire history of the Church of a single person or text that taught baptism of desire or blood? Don't change the subject or ask new questions until you address it. We all know what the inevitable answer is...let's see if you have the guts to admit it.
-
Herein lies the problem. You believe that infallibly defined declarations to be only "docuмents" but the teachings of the fathers to be infallible. If that were the case then there would be no need for infallible declarations!
The CCC #846 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) teaches that defined dogma is only an "old wives tale" by saying that dogma is only an "affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers".
Then to twist the dogma into something completely and totally meaningless, the CCC re-formulates it - and the CCC does not even hide the fact that they reformulated it because they say so right in the catechism (see link above).
What this *should* tell the entire world is that in order for the Dogma to be interpreted to mean those outside the Church can be saved via BOB/BOD, the dogma *must be re-formulated* i.e. it's meaning twisted.
You are never going to come to the truth consulting Vatican II-tainted sources like the CCC. Here you are defending a "dogma" using references from Vatican II Popes who say dogmas can "evolve".
-
You're just a troll who apparently doesn't even read other people's posts.
In case you missed it, here it is again: I no longer reject or oppose bod/bob. This was a few days ago.
And you still haven't answered my questions.
-Mortalium
I'll believe your conversion when I hear it. Please give us your conversion story on how you came to no longer reject the threefold baptism.
-
Herein lies the problem. You believe that infallibly defined declarations to be only "docuмents" but the teachings of the fathers to be infallible. If that were the case then there would be no need for infallible declarations!
The CCC #846 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) teaches that defined dogma is only an "old wives tale" by saying that dogma is only an "affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers".
Then to twist the dogma into something completely and totally meaningless, the CCC re-formulates it - and the CCC does not even hide the fact that they reformulated it because they say so right in the catechism (see link above).
What this *should* tell the entire world is that in order for the Dogma to be interpreted to mean those outside the Church can be saved via BOB/BOD, the dogma *must be re-formulated* i.e. it's meaning twisted.
You are never going to come to the truth consulting Vatican II-tainted sources like the CCC. Here you are defending a "dogma" using references from Vatican II Popes who say dogmas can "evolve".
Only way to respond to your post is:
:facepalm:
-
Herein lies the problem. You believe that infallibly defined declarations to be only "docuмents" but the teachings of the fathers to be infallible. If that were the case then there would be no need for infallible declarations!
The CCC #846 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) teaches that defined dogma is only an "old wives tale" by saying that dogma is only an "affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers".
Then to twist the dogma into something completely and totally meaningless, the CCC re-formulates it - and the CCC does not even hide the fact that they reformulated it because they say so right in the catechism (see link above).
What this *should* tell the entire world is that in order for the Dogma to be interpreted to mean those outside the Church can be saved via BOB/BOD, the dogma *must be re-formulated* i.e. it's meaning twisted.
You are never going to come to the truth consulting Vatican II-tainted sources like the CCC. Here you are defending a "dogma" using references from Vatican II Popes who say dogmas can "evolve".
Once again (I feel like I am on a "Merry Go 'Round" here), are you, at this point in time, even accusing the Saint Benedict Centers in New Hampshire and/or in Massachusetts of holding to a heresy (or heresies); if so, would you please name those heresies (or heresy)?
-
Once again (I feel like I am on a "Merry Go 'Round" here), are you, at this point in time, even accusing the Saint Benedict Centers in New Hampshire and/or in Massachusetts of holding to a heresy (or heresies); if so, would you please name those heresies (or heresy)?
The question for you Jehanne, is do you believe the following teaching from the First Vatican Council?
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
-
Once again (I feel like I am on a "Merry Go 'Round" here), are you, at this point in time, even accusing the Saint Benedict Centers in New Hampshire and/or in Massachusetts of holding to a heresy (or heresies); if so, would you please name those heresies (or heresy)?
The question for you Jehanne, is do you believe the following teaching from the First Vatican Council?
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Yes, but to "answer your next question," do I decide that I am in communion with Rome or does Rome (that is, the Pope and Magisterium) decide that it is communion with me? If I have explained to Rome (say, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) my theological positions and Rome has accepted those positions as being "within the bounds," then who are you or anyone else to tell me that my positions are erroneous if the lawful ecclesiastical authorities state publicly or at least indirectly (say, by giving me the Sacraments, Confirmation, in particular) that my theological positions and/or interpretations are both valid and licit? In other words, who are you to judge what is and is not acceptable per the Church's "ordinary and universal teaching office"?
-
The question for you Jehanne, is do you believe the following teaching from the First Vatican Council?
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Yes, but to "answer your next question," do I decide that I am in communion with Rome or does Rome (that is, the Pope and Magisterium) decide that it is communion with me? If I have explained to Rome (say, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) my theological positions and Rome has accepted those positions as being "within the bounds," then who are you or anyone else to tell me that my positions are erroneous if the lawful ecclesiastical authorities state publicly or at least indirectly (say, by giving me the Sacraments, Confirmation, in particular) that my theological positions and/or interpretations are both valid and licit? In other words, who are you to judge what is and is not acceptable per the Church's "ordinary and universal teaching office"?
You stated you agree with the First Vatican Council in that we must believe both solemn teaching ( a.k.a. solemn magisterium) and ordinary teaching ( a.k.a. the ordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal teaching office). We need only look at definitions of the ordinary magisterium in traditional Church references to determine exactly what the ordinary magisterium consists of and what we must therefore believe. Here are 2 quick definitions to help clarify this:
In "A Catholic Dictionary" (Attwater, 1951), under "Magisterium", it defines the Ordinary Magisterium as the second form of Church teaching that is "continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared."
In "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918) under Canon 1323, page 327, in describing the Ordinary Magisterium it states, "What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."
So to determine whether a teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium, we can clearly see the source of the teaching can originate basically anywhere within the Church, and as long as it has been unanimously taught (without being condemned by the solemn magisterium, that is, Popes or Councils), it is mandated to be believed by the First Vatican Council. The quotes teaching baptism of desire and blood on baptismofdesire.com span nearly the entire history of the Catholic Church, and are clearly unanimous, without a single condemnation from the solemn magisterium, and therefore qualify as part of the ordinary magisterium. We don't need to judge whether you support this teaching are not; you either believe it or you don't.
-
The Fathers are unanimous from the beginning that no one enters heaven or is freed from original sin without water baptism.
In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5, and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”
In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr:
“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”
155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr further writes:
“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]…” [103]
In 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus writes:
“… giving the disciples the power of regenerating in God, He said to them: ‘Go teach all nations, and baptize… Just as dry wheat without moisture cannot become one dough or one loaf, so also, we who are many cannot be made one in Christ Jesus, without the water from heaven…Our bodies achieve unity through the washing… our souls, however, through the Spirit. Both, then, are necessary.” [104]
Here we see again a clear enunciation of the constant and apostolic Tradition that no one is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, from no less than the great apostolic father St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century. St. Irenaeus knew St. Polycarp and St. Polycarp knew the Apostle John himself.
In 181 A.D., St. Theophilus continues the Tradition:
“… those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration…” [105]
In 203 A.D., Tertullian writes:
“… it is in fact prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in view of that declaration of the Lord, who says: ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life [John 3:5]…” [106]
Notice how Tertullian affirms the same apostolic Tradition that no one is saved without water Baptism based on the words of Jesus Himself.
Tertullian further writes in 203 A.D.:
“A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away … nor can we otherwise be saved, except by permanently abiding in the water.” [107]
Baptism has also been called since apostolic times the Seal, the Sign and the Illumination; for without this Seal, Sign or Illumination no one is forgiven of original sin or sealed as a member of Jesus Christ.
“… he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.” (2 Cor. 1:21-22)
As early as 140 A.D., Hermas had already taught this truth – that Baptism is the Seal – which was delivered by the Apostles from Jesus Christ.
Hermas, 140 A.D.: “… before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead, and come out of it alive.” [108]
St. Ephraim, c. 350 A.D.: “… we are anointed in Baptism, whereby we bear His seal.” [109]
St. Gregory Nyssa, c. 380 A.D.: “Make haste, O sheep, towards the sign of the cross and the Seal [Baptism] which will save you from your misery!” [110]
St. Clement of Alexandria, 202 A.D.:
“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons… This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins…” [111]
Origen, 244 A.D.:
“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants… there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” [112]
St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian Fathers, writes in 336 A.D.:
“This, then, is faith: that a man believe in God … His Spirit …His Christ… Also, that a man believe in the resurrection of the dead; and moreover, that he believe in the Sacrament of Baptism. This is the belief of the Church of God.” [113]
The same Syrian Father further writes:
“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” [114]
Here we see in the writings of St. Aphraates the same teaching of Tradition on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation based on the words of Christ in John 3:5.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.” [115]
We see that St. Cyril continues the apostolic Tradition that no one enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, based again on an absolute understanding Our Lord’s own words in John 3:5.
St. Basil the Great, c. 355 A.D.:
“Whence is it that we are Christians? Through faith, all will answer. How are we saved? By being born again in the grace of baptism… For it is the same loss for anyone to depart this life unbaptized, as to receive that baptism from which one thing of what has been handed down has been omitted.” [116]
St. Gregory of Elvira, 360 A.D.:
“Christ is called Net, because through Him and in Him the diverse multitudes of peoples are gathered from the sea of the world, through the water of Baptism and into the Church, where a distinction is made between the good and the wicked.” [117]
St. Ephraim, 366 A.D.:
“This the Most Holy Catholic Church professes. In this same Holy Trinity She baptizes unto eternal life.” [118]
Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.:
“This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…” [119]
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.” [120]
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.” [121]
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.” [122]
St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” [123]
St Augustine, 395 A.D.:
“… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.” [124]
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” [125]
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D.:
“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.” [126]
Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.” [127]
Many other passages could be quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the Fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5. The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following in his three volume set on the Fathers.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.” [128]
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:
1) The Fathers are constant in their teaching that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;
2) The Fathers are so constant on this point that it likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible teaching of the Popes;
3) The constant teaching of the Fathers that all must receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.
And based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.” [129]
But, as is the case with many other matters, not all of the fathers remained consistent with their own affirmation of the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
NOT ALL OF THE FATHERS REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN AFFIRMATION
Despite the fact that there is a constant tradition from the beginning that no one at all is saved without water baptism, not all of the fathers always remained consistent with their own affirmation on this point. And that is where we come across the theories of “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire,” each of which will be discussed in turn. But it must be understood that the fathers of the Church were mistaken and inconsistent with their own teaching and the apostolic Tradition on many points – since they were fallible men who made many errors.
Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.” [130]
The fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and even dangerous. St. Basil the Great said that the Holy Ghost is second to the Son of God in order and dignity, in a horrible and even heretical attempt to explain the Holy Trinity.
St. Basil (363): “The Son is not, however, second to the Father in nature, because the Godhead is one in each of them, and plainly, too, in the Holy Spirit, even if in order and dignity He is second to the Son (yes, this we do concede!), though not in such a way, it is clear, that He were of another nature.” [131]
When St. Basil says above that the Godhead is One in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he is correctly affirming the universal, apostolic Tradition. But when he says that the Holy Spirit is second in dignity to the Son he ceases to remain consistent with this Tradition and falls into error (material heresy, in fact). And the fathers made countless errors in attempting to defend or articulate the Faith.
St. Augustine wrote an entire book of corrections and was writing a second when he died. St. Fulgentius and a host of others, including St. Augustine, held that it was certain that infants who die without baptism descend into the fires of hell, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. As Pope Pius VI confirmed, unbaptized infants go to hell, but to a place in hell where there is no fire. [132]
But St. Augustine was so outspoken in favor of this error that it became the common and basically unchallenged teaching for more than 500 years, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.” [133]
This is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the Popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.” [134]
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII [135]
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’” [136]
The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early Church father. It is only a Pope operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error on faith or morals. So, when we examine and show how Churchmen have erred on the topics of baptism of desire and blood this is 100% consistent with the teaching of the Church, which has always acknowledged that any Churchman, no matter how great, can make errors, even significant ones. Finally, after dealing with baptism of desire and blood, I will quote a Pope, who is also an early Church father, whose teaching ends all debate on the subject. I will now proceed to discuss baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
-
The question for you Jehanne, is do you believe the following teaching from the First Vatican Council?
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Yes, but to "answer your next question," do I decide that I am in communion with Rome or does Rome (that is, the Pope and Magisterium) decide that it is communion with me? If I have explained to Rome (say, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) my theological positions and Rome has accepted those positions as being "within the bounds," then who are you or anyone else to tell me that my positions are erroneous if the lawful ecclesiastical authorities state publicly or at least indirectly (say, by giving me the Sacraments, Confirmation, in particular) that my theological positions and/or interpretations are both valid and licit? In other words, who are you to judge what is and is not acceptable per the Church's "ordinary and universal teaching office"?
You stated you agree with the First Vatican Council in that we must believe both solemn teaching ( a.k.a. solemn magisterium) and ordinary teaching ( a.k.a. the ordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal teaching office). We need only look at definitions of the ordinary magisterium in traditional Church references to determine exactly what the ordinary magisterium consists of and what we must therefore believe. Here are 2 quick definitions to help clarify this:
In "A Catholic Dictionary" (Attwater, 1951), under "Magisterium", it defines the Ordinary Magisterium as the second form of Church teaching that is "continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared."
In "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918) under Canon 1323, page 327, in describing the Ordinary Magisterium it states, "What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."
So to determine whether a teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium, we can clearly see the source of the teaching can originate basically anywhere within the Church, and as long as it has been unanimously taught (without being condemned by the solemn magisterium, that is, Popes or Councils), it is mandated to be believed by the First Vatican Council. The quotes teaching baptism of desire and blood on baptismofdesire.com span nearly the entire history of the Catholic Church, and are clearly unanimous, without a single condemnation from the solemn magisterium, and therefore qualify as part of the ordinary magisterium. We don't need to judge whether you support this teaching are not; you either believe it or you don't.
If you claim that Father Feeney promulgated heresy, then you are accusing Pope Paul VI of reconciling a public heretic to the Catholic Church and of allowing a Roman Catholic bishop to give that individual a public Mass of Christian Burial without any formal recantation of his supposed "errors." You are also accusing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for accepting as "orthodox" an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council which allows for a harmonization with Father Feeney's Bread of Life. You are also accusing a Roman Catholic bishop in good standing with the Holy See of administering the Sacrament of Confirmation to public heretics. You are also accusing the Catholic hierarchy of sacrilege and blasphemy for allowing public Masses to take place among public heretics.
You have one of two choices -- either admit that Father Feeney's ideas were orthodox, even if they are "not popular" or even "improbable" OR claim that multiple Popes and bishops of the Catholic Church are allowing the Sacraments of the Church to be administered to and by public heretics.
-
You stated you agree with the First Vatican Council in that we must believe both solemn teaching ( a.k.a. solemn magisterium) and ordinary teaching ( a.k.a. the ordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal teaching office). We need only look at definitions of the ordinary magisterium in traditional Church references to determine exactly what the ordinary magisterium consists of and what we must therefore believe. Here are 2 quick definitions to help clarify this:
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside the Church, you grasp at straws.
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.
The saints and/or Doctors, of old or of late, all popes and theologians, of whatever era, and their pronouncements are reliable in their treatment of this subject, if they accept and support the above canon. Their testimony or opinions are useless (at best), if they do not, this regardless of any other contribution they may have made to Catholic erudition. The same must be said of the works of all Catholic writers, including the Ordinary Magisterium.
That website is a curse for you and those like you and should be removed from the web.
-
The Fathers are unanimous from the beginning that no one enters heaven or is freed from original sin without water baptism.
Bowler, no one is denying, nor have they ever denied, the fact that the Church requires the Sacrament of baptism with water. No one. It is simply a fact that the Church ALSO teaches Baptism of desire and blood. BOTH have been openly and unanimously taught by the Church, century after century. You really need to get past your mental block. Read this quote:
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood." Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Substitutes for the Sacrament
Here we have a quote stating that the fathers and theologians believed in the threefold baptism. Again, over 1500 Bishops, priests, professors, authors etc. from all over the world contributed to creating the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it has an imprimatur. It is a trustworthy Catholic resource and has not been contested for the 100 years it's been in existence. Of the quotes on baptismofdesire.com, the first few are from Church Fathers, so this confirms this statement is true.
-
You stated you agree with the First Vatican Council in that we must believe both solemn teaching ( a.k.a. solemn magisterium) and ordinary teaching ( a.k.a. the ordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal teaching office). We need only look at definitions of the ordinary magisterium in traditional Church references to determine exactly what the ordinary magisterium consists of and what we must therefore believe. Here are 2 quick definitions to help clarify this:
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside the Church, you grasp at straws.
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.
Stubborn, you need to read in traditional Church references about the "soul of the Church", which is different than the "body of the Church". No one is rewarding salvation to those outside the Church; if someone belongs to the soul of the Church, but not the body, they can still be saved according to Pope Saint Pius X:
THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, The Ninth Article of the Creed
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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.
Let me guess, will you now condemn Pope Saint Pius X?
Go look up "soul of the Church" - it is mentioned in many traditional references including Canon law, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic dictionary, The Catechism Explained, in several papal encyclicals, Etc. etc.
The saints and/or Doctors, of old or of late, all popes and theologians, of whatever era, and their pronouncements are reliable in their treatment of this subject, if they accept and support the above canon. Their testimony or opinions are useless (at best), if they do not, this regardless of any other contribution they may have made to Catholic erudition. The same must be said of the works of all Catholic writers, including the Ordinary Magisterium.
As has already been quoted earlier in this discussion, the First Vatican Council declared the ordinary magisterium as infallible. Now the all-knowing Stubborn is here to announce that this declaration from a General Council is wrong? That's called heresy Stubborn. You condemn Baptismofdesire.com but we can clearly see it is you that have no idea what you're talking about. You have no business discussing a doctrine you know nothing about.
-
We still don't know what you believe when you use the term "baptism of desire", so, why don't you begin by telling us exactly in what "baptism of desire" you believe. For:
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
AND the only real problem I have with so-called baptism of desire is the teaching of:
The School of Salamances - the theory that surfaced in the early 1600's , and went nowhere outside of the theological schools, till it resurfaced in the late 1800's, and was thereafter thrust upon the laity in the 20th century catechisms. This is what is referred to as the theory of implicit faith. It says that to be saved a person needs to have "a belief in a God that rewards", and to make an act of love which implicitly (which "implies" a belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity) is equivalent to baptism of desire and there is no need to be baptized, or belong to the Catholic Church, or desire to be baptized, or to know about Jesus Christ (the Incarnation) and the Holy Trinity.
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
Pages 217-218: " It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
END
I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or baptism of blood as dangerous to the faith if people really only limited BOD to those two, however, no one today does restrict it so. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to the catechumen, do not really.
-
I am an Augustinian.
Me, too.
-
Go look up "soul of the Church" - it is mentioned in many traditional references including Canon law, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic dictionary, The Catechism Explained, in several papal encyclicals, Etc. etc.
You are totally winging it. Why don't you quote Canon Law and the papal encyclicals that define this "Soul of the Church"?
This shows why one should always follow dogma first. This whole discussion is moot, because:
This idea that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not the Body, IS AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION of the term Soul of the Church. The purveyors of this error are forced by numerous dogmatic decrees to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore they forced to invent another “hidden” Church.
First, this error stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.” 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. And this is without question HERETICAL.
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 grievous and pernicious 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 XI469 and Pius XII.470
Third, the most powerful proof against the “Soul of the Church” heresy 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, 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. This dogmatic decree destroys any idea that one can
be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church, or an implicit Church or any kind of invicible Church without belonging to its Body.
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 Jews, 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.”
This dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV and many others I could post destroys any idea of the “Soul of the Church Heresy.” The following few will suffice. ALL DOGMATIC!
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, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of
the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
So much for the “Soul of the Church", all all such invisible extensions of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
-
Dear saintbosco13,
We still don't know what you believe when you use the term "baptism of desire", so, why don't you begin by telling us exactly in what "baptism of desire" you believe?
-
Dearsaintboscoe13,
The posting below was directed to you.
We still don't know what you believe when you use the term "baptism of desire", so, why don't you begin by telling us exactly in what "baptism of desire" you believe. For:
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
AND the only real problem I have with so-called baptism of desire is the teaching of:
The School of Salamances - the theory that surfaced in the early 1600's , and went nowhere outside of the theological schools, till it resurfaced in the late 1800's, and was thereafter thrust upon the laity in the 20th century catechisms. This is what is referred to as the theory of implicit faith. It says that to be saved a person needs to have "a belief in a God that rewards", and to make an act of love which implicitly (which "implies" a belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity) is equivalent to baptism of desire and there is no need to be baptized, or belong to the Catholic Church, or desire to be baptized, or to know about Jesus Christ (the Incarnation) and the Holy Trinity.
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
Pages 217-218: " It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
END
I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or baptism of blood as dangerous to the faith if people really only limited BOD to those two, however, no one today does restrict it so. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to the catechumen, do not really.
-
0
-
You stated you agree with the First Vatican Council in that we must believe both solemn teaching ( a.k.a. solemn magisterium) and ordinary teaching ( a.k.a. the ordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal teaching office). We need only look at definitions of the ordinary magisterium in traditional Church references to determine exactly what the ordinary magisterium consists of and what we must therefore believe. Here are 2 quick definitions to help clarify this:
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside the Church, you grasp at straws.
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.
Stubborn, you need to read in traditional Church references about the "soul of the Church", which is different than the "body of the Church". No one is rewarding salvation to those outside the Church; if someone belongs to the soul of the Church, but not the body, they can still be saved according to Pope Saint Pius X:
THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, The Ninth Article of the Creed
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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.
Let me guess, will you now condemn Pope Saint Pius X?
Straw man yet again. The defined doctrines of the Church are "the gospel" of St. Paul and the other Apostles; the "Catechism" of St. Pius X is not.
Catechisms must bend to dogma - not the other way around no matter how much you or anyone might wish the opposite were true. Until you accept this truth - and it is the truth, you will remain error prone.
FYI:
Item 1:In the original edition of The Catechism of St. Pius X, there is no mention of either BOB or BOD. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.
Item 2: The Catechism is a truly excellent book. It was produced by several, very able Italian theologians, at least three of whom were bishops, under the chairmanship of Cardinal St. Charles Borromeo (1538-1584), who completed it in the year 1564, one year after the close of the Council, and was approved and issued by Pope St. Pius V. For all its merits, however, no one should refer to The Catechism in order to find therein a way to dilute the ex cathedra definitions of the Dogma of Faith.
Item 3: The Catechism was called for by the Council to be used as a source-book for pastors and other catechists. It generally embodies the teaching of the Council's canons. It should find the same use today.
Item 4: What is needed is a new edition of The Catechism, one which conforms
as closely as possible to the original Latin version and is free of all Liberal
and other misleading glosses.
The Ordinary Magisterium cannot infallibly teach any new teachings no matter how badly you wish it were otherwise. BOB and BOB are new teachings which contradict defined dogma. We say they are new teachings because they are not a part of the Deposit of Faith.
-
Item 4: What is needed is a new edition of The Catechism, one which conforms
as closely as possible to the original Latin version and is free of all Liberal and other misleading glosses.
The Roman Catechism was first published in Italian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catechism
-
Item 4: What is needed is a new edition of The Catechism, one which conforms
as closely as possible to the original Latin version and is free of all Liberal and other misleading glosses.
The Roman Catechism was first published in Italian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catechism
The point being that yes, the first draft was in Italian, but, as was the custom when the Church was One, it was distributed to priests all over the world in Latin - and BOB and BOD are not found anywhere in the original.
Either way, it is a completely wrong assertion on the part of saintbosco13 to claim BOB and BOD must be believed because Pope Pius X said so in a catechism that was already almost what, 300 years old by the time the pope was born.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm
This catechism differs from other summaries of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the people in two points: it is primarily intended for priests having care of souls (ad parochos)...............................Three cardinals were appointed to supervise the work. St. Charles Borromeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. Cardinal William Sirletus then gave it the final touches, and the famous Humanists, Julius Pogianus and Paulus Manutius, translated it into classical Latin. It was then published in Latin and Italian as "Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566" (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, "De Ref.", c. vii).
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm
The Catechism has not of course the authority of conciliary definitions or other primary symbols of faith; for, although decreed by the Council, it was only published a year after the Fathers had dispersed, and it consequently lacks a formal conciliary approbation.
From the same link as above should teach stjohnbosco13 something, first, the original catechism of Trent is not the catechism he thinks it is and makes no mention of either terms BOB or BOD, second, the catechism comes from Trent's infallible decrees, not the other way around, third, by now it should be obvious that the link "baptismofdesire.com" is another deadly canker to the faith and needs to be removed from the internet.
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm
The Catechism has not of course the authority of conciliary definitions or other primary symbols of faith; for, although decreed by the Council, it was only published a year after the Fathers had dispersed, and it consequently lacks a formal conciliary approbation.
From the same link as above should teach stjohnbosco13 something, first, the original catechism of Trent is not the catechism he thinks it is and makes no mention of either terms BOB or BOD, second, the catechism comes from Trent's infallible decrees, not the other way around, third, by now it should be obvious that the link "baptismofdesire.com" is another deadly canker to the faith and needs to be removed from the internet.
The Roman Catechism is not the same as the Catechism of Pius X. The Catechism of Pius X was just a catechism printed in Italian in 1907. It has nothing to do with the reference that you posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with Pius X either, it just bares his name. Equating the Catechism of Pius X with the pope, is the same as equating Federal Express with the Federal Government.
-
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or baptism of blood as dangerous to the faith if people really only limited BOD to those two, however, no one today does restrict it so. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to the catechumen, do not really.
Interesting.... Now you believe in the threefold baptism sometimes.....
Please tell me where the Church teaches that the threefold baptism applies to catechumens only? Can you present Church teaching on this?
Looking at the quotes on baptismofdesire.com, Church Father Cyprian mentions catechumens, but Church Father Tertullian does not. Neither do the Saints in the century following that. Yet Saint Thomas mentions it in his Summa In the 13th century as does Canon law in the 20th century. So catechumens have been mentioned on and off throughout the entire history of the Church with regard to the threefold baptism, but they are only mentioned occasionally. Your argument that the threefold baptism applies to "catechumens only" clearly does not hold water.
-
Go look up "soul of the Church" - it is mentioned in many traditional references including Canon law, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic dictionary, The Catechism Explained, in several papal encyclicals, Etc. etc.
You are totally winging it. Why don't you quote Canon Law and the papal encyclicals that define this "Soul of the Church"?
This shows why one should always follow dogma first. This whole discussion is moot, because:
This idea that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not the Body, IS AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION of the term Soul of the Church. The purveyors of this error are forced by numerous dogmatic decrees to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore they forced to invent another “hidden” Church.
Per your request, here are 2 quotes from "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918) which refer to the same interpretation of "soul of the Church" as I have already mentioned:
Canon 1240
"Thus a non-Catholic may be taken for a Catholic, because he acts like one, although he is not convinced of the truth of every Catholic dogma. Such a one might be given ecclesiastical burial, provided, of course, that his heresy was not notorious and he desired such a burial. The reason lies in the fact that by Baptism he belonged to the body of the Church, and in his mind may even have belonged to the soul of the Church."
Canon 2258
"The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin."
And another quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the article "the Church":
"Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body."
So Canon Law and the Catholic Encyclopedia are very clear on this. But you, Bowler, know better, and have declared these sources as erroneous for us! So glad you are here to save us, Bowler.
-
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or baptism of blood as dangerous to the faith if people really only limited BOD to those two, however, no one today does restrict it so. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to the catechumen, do not really.
Interesting.... Now you believe in the threefold baptism sometimes.....
You have difficulty with the English language? Unlike yourself I have spelled out what I believe, and it is not even believing in explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen.
You on the other hand continue to avoid my simple question. For the third time:
We still don't know what you believe when you use the term "baptism of desire", so, why don't you begin by telling us exactly in what "baptism of desire" you believe.
-
You stated you agree with the First Vatican Council in that we must believe both solemn teaching ( a.k.a. solemn magisterium) and ordinary teaching ( a.k.a. the ordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal teaching office). We need only look at definitions of the ordinary magisterium in traditional Church references to determine exactly what the ordinary magisterium consists of and what we must therefore believe. Here are 2 quick definitions to help clarify this:
In your zeal to reward salvation to those outside the Church, you grasp at straws.
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.
Stubborn, you need to read in traditional Church references about the "soul of the Church", which is different than the "body of the Church". No one is rewarding salvation to those outside the Church; if someone belongs to the soul of the Church, but not the body, they can still be saved according to Pope Saint Pius X:
THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, The Ninth Article of the Creed
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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.
Let me guess, will you now condemn Pope Saint Pius X?
Straw man yet again. The defined doctrines of the Church are "the gospel" of St. Paul and the other Apostles; the "Catechism" of St. Pius X is not.
Catechisms must bend to dogma - not the other way around no matter how much you or anyone might wish the opposite were true. Until you accept this truth - and it is the truth, you will remain error prone.
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself, and published in 1908. It was written with the layman in mind. So from your statement above, you are clearly saying that this Pope and Saint has written and published a catechism that is contrary to Catholic dogma? So Pope Saint Pius X and all subsequent popes never noticed this catechism teaches contrary to Catholic dogma, but you, Stubborn, are here again to save us from it? Lucky we have you to save us from all these heretical saints and popes, Stubborn!
If the catechism of Saint Pius X were against Catholic dogma, it would certainly be known now that it has been circulating the Church for over 100 years. And when it came time for Pope Saint Pius X's beatification and canonization, it certainly would have been made known loud and clear, and would have been a major impediment in proceeding with the beatification and canonization. But no, it has not been contested as erroneous to this day. I think it's time to find a new hobby, Stubborn, because you're not so good at this one.
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
-
I think it's time to find a new hobby, Stubborn, because you're not so good at this one.
Cheap shot. Why do you refuse to answer my questions? You appeal to the Ordinary Magisterium as teaching BoD as being de fide yet you deny the very same authority as having found Father Feeney and his followers as being in full communion with Rome and fully Catholic. If BoD were, truly, de fide definita or de fide ecclesiastica, point out to me where the Magisterium has ever declared such as constituting that there are individuals in Paradise (or, on their way there) who, since the promulgation of the Gospel, lack the character of sacramental Baptism? In particular, attach a theological qualifier to the following proposition:
Everyone in Paradise or in Purgatory, since the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has ended his/her life with the character of sacramental Baptism.
If you are not claiming that the above statement is heretical or even theologically erroneous, then you have no claims of heterodoxy against the followers of Father Feeney.
-
Go look up "soul of the Church" - it is mentioned in many traditional references including Canon law, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic dictionary, The Catechism Explained, in several papal encyclicals, Etc. etc.
You are totally winging it. Why don't you quote Canon Law and the papal encyclicals that define this "Soul of the Church"?
This shows why one should always follow dogma first. This whole discussion is moot, because:
This idea that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not the Body, IS AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION of the term Soul of the Church. The purveyors of this error are forced by numerous dogmatic decrees to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore they forced to invent another “hidden” Church.
Per your request, here are 2 quotes from "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918) which refer to the same interpretation of "soul of the Church" as I have already mentioned:
Canon 1240
"Thus a non-Catholic may be taken for a Catholic, because he acts like one, although he is not convinced of the truth of every Catholic dogma. Such a one might be given ecclesiastical burial, provided, of course, that his heresy was not notorious and he desired such a burial. The reason lies in the fact that by Baptism he belonged to the body of the Church, and in his mind may even have belonged to the soul of the Church."
Canon 2258
"The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin."
1) Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith.
2) Besides, those two quotes are not Canon law, they are commentaries by an author. Therefore you have not provided any quote from Canon Law on the term Soul of the Church, as you envision it.
3) If you knew the faith you would understand that regarding Canon 1240, the commentator is talking about a heretic or schismatic (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox), who is baptized, and desired to be a Catholic (be buried as a Catholic). The person belongs to the Body of the Church by simple rejecting his heresy. Any living Protestant can do the same, and in one instant they are Catholics. The commentator is strictly commenting on that the person can be given a Catholic buriel. Such a person could not be given a Catholic burial for the first 1917 years of the Church.
"Thus a non-Catholic may be taken for a Catholic, because he acts like one, although he is not convinced of the truth of every Catholic dogma. Such a one might be given ecclesiastical burial, provided, of course, that his heresy was not notorious and he desired such a burial. The reason lies in the fact that by Baptism he belonged to the body of the Church, and in his mind may even have belonged to the soul of the Church."
The person in the example belongs to the Body, for he is baptized, therefore, he can belong to the soul if he truly repents of his heresy and sins (does a perfect act of contrition).
4) the second commentary also has nothing to do with teaching that there is a soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Below is a the teaching of Abbot Marmion which will better explain that commentary is saying. This was written a few years before the encyclical of Pius XII Mystici Corporis:
Christ the Life of the Soul, by Abbot D Columba Marmion 1925
Chapter 5- THE CHURCH, THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST (pg 93)
"to procure this glory is the Church. Christ comes on earth to create and constitute the Church; it is the work to which all His existence converges, and He confirms it by His Passion and Death. His love for His Father led Jesus Christ to the mountain of Calvary but it was there to form the Church, and make of her, by purifying her in His Divine Blood, a spotless and immaculate Bride: Dilexit Ecclesiam et seipsum tradidit pro ea ut illam sanctificaret (Ephes 5:25-26).
This is what St. Paul tells us. Let us then see what this Church is, of which the name occurs so often under the great Apostle's pen as to be inseparable from that of Christ.
We may consider the Church in two ways: first as a visible, hierarchical society, founded by Christ to continue His sanctifying mission here below; she appears thus, as a living organism. But this point of view is not the only one; to have a complete idea of the Church, we must regard her, as the holy and invisible society of the souls that share by grace in Christ's Divine Sonship, and form the Kingdom He won by His Blood. That is what St. Paul calls the body of Christ, not of course, His physical body, but His mystical body. It is on this second point of view we shall principally dwell: we must not, however, pass over the first in silence.
It is true that the invisible Church, or the soul of the Church, is more important than the visible Church, but, in the normal economy of Christianity, it is only by union with the visible society that souls have participation in the possessions and privileges of the invisible kingdom of Christ*. END"
This invisible Church is ONLY composed on those people who are in a state of grace, as Abbot Marmion explains, it is a spotless and immaculate Bride, the holy and invisible society of the souls.
-
"it is only by union with the visible society that souls have participation in the possessions and privileges of the invisible kingdom of Christ*. END"
This invisible Church is ONLY composed on those people who are in a state of grace, as Abbot Marmion explains, it is a spotless and immaculate Bride, the holy and invisible society of the souls.
Notice that Abbot Marmion says "it is only by union with the visible society that souls have participation in the possessions and privileges of the invisible". In other words they must be baptized Catholics: by union with the visible society , the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself, and published in 1908.
Never heard that said before in all of my years debating BOD. Can you prove it?
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”.
-
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or baptism of blood as dangerous to the faith if people really only limited BOD to those two, however, no one today does restrict it so. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to the catechumen, do not really.
Interesting.... Now you believe in the threefold baptism sometimes.....
You have difficulty with the English language? Unlike yourself I have spelled out what I believe, and it is not even believing in explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen.
You on the other hand continue to avoid my simple question. For the third time:
We still don't know what you believe when you use the term "baptism of desire", so, why don't you begin by telling us exactly in what "baptism of desire" you believe.
Good night.
-
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
Please tell me where the Church teaches that the threefold baptism applies to catechumens only? Can you present Church teaching on this?
Can you quote any Father talking about baptism of desire of pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics ?
The Fathers of the Church never wrote anything about baptism of desire of anyone but a catechumen. All of the other theories that followed are not properly BOD. It is not the "Feeneyites" who say this. Read the SSPX Fr. Rulleau's Baptism of Desire, A Patristic Commentary
Page 43
3. THE NATURE OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE
3.1 THE STATUS OF THE QUESTION
"The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith. Historically, the Fathers of the Church only the case of a catechumen who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament. Following the same reasoning, however, should we not include in this category of saved by baptism of desire converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism? If so, what kind of desire is necessary? Would a simple attraction towards the Catholic religion suffice? Again, following the same reasoning, should we not include someone who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known? It becomes clear that by following this line of reasoning you would end by extending baptism of desire to every decent man seeking God. Consistent with the same reasoning, should we not go so far as to call "anonymous Christians" everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"? When the Church was only confronted by a waning paganism, these questions did not come up. Since the beginning of the Modern Age, however, as the Church has found herself confronted by entire nations which do not know Christ, and, in the former Christendom, by Christians benighted by ignorance and unbelief, these questions have become unavoidable" END
-----------------------------------------------
P.S.- the Catechism of Trent (pg 179) is also speaking about a explicit desire of the catechumen in its comment:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
-
A Jew who dies with the desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church would die as a Catholic, not a Jew.
-
Logically if one argues against "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood", then there would be no such thing as Spiritual Communion.
-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm
The Catechism has not of course the authority of conciliary definitions or other primary symbols of faith; for, although decreed by the Council, it was only published a year after the Fathers had dispersed, and it consequently lacks a formal conciliary approbation.
From the same link as above should teach stjohnbosco13 something, first, the original catechism of Trent is not the catechism he thinks it is and makes no mention of either terms BOB or BOD, second, the catechism comes from Trent's infallible decrees, not the other way around, third, by now it should be obvious that the link "baptismofdesire.com" is another deadly canker to the faith and needs to be removed from the internet.
The Roman Catechism is not the same as the Catechism of Pius X. The Catechism of Pius X was just a catechism printed in Italian in 1907. It has nothing to do with the reference that you posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with Pius X either, it just bares his name. Equating the Catechism of Pius X with the pope, is the same as equating Federal Express with the Federal Government.
I get the Roman Catechism also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent confused with Pius X Catechism - either way, the catechism takes it's direction from that which is de fide and not the other way around.
Don't understand why that truth, obvious as it is, is denied.
-
Cement dried before I could fix..........
I get the Roman Catechism also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent confused with Pius X Catechism - either way, the catechism takes it's direction from that which is de fide and not the other way around - BOB/BOD are not de fide and were not in the original Catechism of Trent.
I don't understand why that truth, obvious as it is, is denied.
-
Logically if one argues against "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood", then there would be no such thing as Spiritual Communion.
The comparison is actually completely illogical because you are attempting to equate an infidel's desire for a baptism (which he knows nothing about) in order to obtain for salvation, with the Spiritual Communion Catholics alone enjoy.
No one outside the Church can receive Spiritual Communion any more than they can receive actual Communion or any other sacrament for that matter - precisely because they are outside the Church until they are baptized.
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself, and published in 1908. It was written with the layman in mind. So from your statement above, you are clearly saying that this Pope and Saint has written and published a catechism that is contrary to Catholic dogma? So Pope Saint Pius X and all subsequent popes never noticed this catechism teaches contrary to Catholic dogma, but you, Stubborn, are here again to save us from it? Lucky we have you to save us from all these heretical saints and popes, Stubborn!
If the catechism of Saint Pius X were against Catholic dogma, it would certainly be known now that it has been circulating the Church for over 100 years. And when it came time for Pope Saint Pius X's beatification and canonization, it certainly would have been made known loud and clear, and would have been a major impediment in proceeding with the beatification and canonization. But no, it has not been contested as erroneous to this day. I think it's time to find a new hobby, Stubborn, because you're not so good at this one.
The pope did not write the Catechism named after him - where do you come up with this stuff? - - - and for what purpose?
SJB13, not sure why you are so obtuse to the truth but if you believe the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium can be only infallible through a catechism, then use the latest version and quote only from the NO's CCC.
Otherwise, you do not believe the very thing you are trying to get others to believe and that is lunacy on your part, not Catholicity.
FYI, Pope St. Pius X ordered that "The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent"...............there was no mention of the term BOB or BOD in the catechism of the Council of Trent when the pope gave this directive in his encyclical letter, Acerbo Nimis. LOOK IT UP.
Why are you consistently attempting to defame the great saint by attributing to him the very thing he most courageously fought against, namely, indifferentism and liberalism - two heresies of modernism from which the theory of a BOD arises?
-
A Jew who dies with the desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church would die as a Catholic, not a Jew.
That is just your personal opinion. I am attempting to keep this discussion on a higher plain, a Catholic plain. I asked specifically for a quote any Father of the Church teaching that?
Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not quoted one Father teaching it).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
Please tell me where the Church teaches that the threefold baptism applies to catechumens only? Can you present Church teaching on this?
Can you quote any Father talking about baptism of desire of pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics ?
The Fathers of the Church never wrote anything about baptism of desire of anyone but a catechumen. All of the other theories that followed are not properly BOD. It is not the "Feeneyites" who say this. Read the SSPX Fr. Rulleau's Baptism of Desire, A Patristic Commentary
Page 43
3. THE NATURE OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE
3.1 THE STATUS OF THE QUESTION
"The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith. Historically, the Fathers of the Church only the case of a catechumen who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament. Following the same reasoning, however, should we not include in this category of saved by baptism of desire converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism? If so, what kind of desire is necessary? Would a simple attraction towards the Catholic religion suffice? Again, following the same reasoning, should we not include someone who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known? It becomes clear that by following this line of reasoning you would end by extending baptism of desire to every decent man seeking God. Consistent with the same reasoning, should we not go so far as to call "anonymous Christians" everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"? When the Church was only confronted by a waning paganism, these questions did not come up. Since the beginning of the Modern Age, however, as the Church has found herself confronted by entire nations which do not know Christ, and, in the former Christendom, by Christians benighted by ignorance and unbelief, these questions have become unavoidable" END
-----------------------------------------------
P.S.- the Catechism of Trent (pg 179) is also speaking about a explicit desire of the catechumen in its comment:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
-
Bowler said: Explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is the ONLY type of baptism of
desire that was taught by a Father of the Church. (and you have not EVEN quoted one Father teaching baptism of desire!!!!!).
Any other baptism of desire theory is therefore not universal. Do you know what that means?
1) You have not quoted one Father of the Church teaching baptism of desire
2) You have not defined what type of "baptism of desire" you believe
3) You have not quoted from Canon Law anything to substantiate your erroneous interpretation of the term Soul of the Church
4) You have not shown proof that Pius X wrote the Catechism of Pius X
All we get from you is personal opinions, and you are obviously totally winging it on your comments 3 and 4.
-
The big heresy and lie that BoDers are trying to push on the Church is this:
Every human being has implicit faith and an implicit desire to be baptized, even amongst those individuals who would, explicitly, deny having any such desires!
In other words, every non-Christian (or non-Catholic) is, in fact, an anonymous Christian or Catholic! This theology is just a radical version of Calvin's double predestination where everyone will be saved whether they want to or not!
-
Go look up "soul of the Church" - it is mentioned in many traditional references including Canon law, the Catholic Encyclopedia, A Catholic dictionary, The Catechism Explained, in several papal encyclicals, Etc. etc.
You are totally winging it. Why don't you quote Canon Law and the papal encyclicals that define this "Soul of the Church"?
This shows why one should always follow dogma first. This whole discussion is moot, because:
This idea that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not the Body, IS AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION of the term Soul of the Church. The purveyors of this error are forced by numerous dogmatic decrees to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore they forced to invent another “hidden” Church.
Per your request, here are 2 quotes from "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918) which refer to the same interpretation of "soul of the Church" as I have already mentioned:
Canon 1240
"Thus a non-Catholic may be taken for a Catholic, because he acts like one, although he is not convinced of the truth of every Catholic dogma. Such a one might be given ecclesiastical burial, provided, of course, that his heresy was not notorious and he desired such a burial. The reason lies in the fact that by Baptism he belonged to the body of the Church, and in his mind may even have belonged to the soul of the Church."
Canon 2258
"The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin."
1) Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith.
2) Besides, those two quotes are not Canon law, they are commentaries by an author. Therefore you have not provided any quote from Canon Law on the term Soul of the Church, as you envision it.
3) If you knew the faith you would understand that regarding Canon 1240, the commentator is talking about a heretic or schismatic (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox), who is baptized, and desired to be a Catholic (be buried as a Catholic). The person belongs to the Body of the Church by simple rejecting his heresy. Any living Protestant can do the same, and in one instant they are Catholics. The commentator is strictly commenting on that the person can be given a Catholic buriel. Such a person could not be given a Catholic burial for the first 1917 years of the Church.
"Thus a non-Catholic may be taken for a Catholic, because he acts like one, although he is not convinced of the truth of every Catholic dogma. Such a one might be given ecclesiastical burial, provided, of course, that his heresy was not notorious and he desired such a burial. The reason lies in the fact that by Baptism he belonged to the body of the Church, and in his mind may even have belonged to the soul of the Church."
The person in the example belongs to the Body, for he is baptized, therefore, he can belong to the soul if he truly repents of his heresy and sins (does a perfect act of contrition).
4) the second commentary also has nothing to do with teaching that there is a soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Below is a the teaching of Abbot Marmion which will better explain that commentary is saying. This was written a few years before the encyclical of Pius XII Mystici Corporis:
Christ the Life of the Soul, by Abbot D Columba Marmion 1925
Chapter 5- THE CHURCH, THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST (pg 93)
"to procure this glory is the Church. Christ comes on earth to create and constitute the Church; it is the work to which all His existence converges, and He confirms it by His Passion and Death. His love for His Father led Jesus Christ to the mountain of Calvary but it was there to form the Church, and make of her, by purifying her in His Divine Blood, a spotless and immaculate Bride: Dilexit Ecclesiam et seipsum tradidit pro ea ut illam sanctificaret (Ephes 5:25-26).
This is what St. Paul tells us. Let us then see what this Church is, of which the name occurs so often under the great Apostle's pen as to be inseparable from that of Christ.
We may consider the Church in two ways: first as a visible, hierarchical society, founded by Christ to continue His sanctifying mission here below; she appears thus, as a living organism. But this point of view is not the only one; to have a complete idea of the Church, we must regard her, as the holy and invisible society of the souls that share by grace in Christ's Divine Sonship, and form the Kingdom He won by His Blood. That is what St. Paul calls the body of Christ, not of course, His physical body, but His mystical body. It is on this second point of view we shall principally dwell: we must not, however, pass over the first in silence.
It is true that the invisible Church, or the soul of the Church, is more important than the visible Church, but, in the normal economy of Christianity, it is only by union with the visible society that souls have participation in the possessions and privileges of the invisible kingdom of Christ*. END"
This invisible Church is ONLY composed on those people who are in a state of grace, as Abbot Marmion explains, it is a spotless and immaculate Bride, the holy and invisible society of the souls.
The quotes I gave were to show you that "soul of the Church" can be interpreted differently than what you said. In fact, looking in "A Catholic Dictionary", it clearly states there are 2 interpretations of "soul of the Church". Here I will give you the full definition of "soul of the Church" as the book states:
"The soul of the Church. The Holy Ghost is the soul of the mystical body of Christ, the Church, as Pope Pius XII declares in Mystici Corporis Christi. But the expression "soul of the Church" has often been used in a metaphorical sense to designate all those who actually are in a state of grace in dependence on the merits of Christ and of the sanctifying action of the Holy Ghost; many of these persons who are not seen to be members of the visible body of the Church. But to say that such persons belonging to the "soul of the Church" is not altogether free from objection. It is better to say of the non-Catholic in good faith that "he belongs invisibly to the Church," as being "related to the mystical Body of the Redeemer by some unconscious reaching out and desire" (Pope Pius XII). (Cf. Salvation ii; Visibility of the Church; Catholic ii.)"
So you can see there are 2 ways to look at the phrase "soul of the Church", and the one I'm referring to is exactly what Pope Pius X refers to when he stated, "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."
So your contention with the definition of "soul of the Church" is now put to rest.
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
Saint Pope Pius X issued the catechism with his name on it during his reign as Pope. Looking at several other references, it says he wrote it. Even if someone else in the Vatican helped him write it, Saint Pope Pius X obviously takes full ownership of the catechism by putting his name on it and issuing it during his reign.
The Feeneyites are like desperate, cornered cats trying to challenge this catechism. It's really embarrassing.
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
Saint Pope Pius X issued the catechism with his name on it during his reign as Pope. Looking at several other references, it says he wrote it. Even if someone else in the Vatican helped him write it, Saint Pope Pius X obviously takes full ownership of the catechism by putting his name on it and issuing it during his reign.
The Feeneyites are like desperate, cornered cats trying to challenge this catechism. It's really embarrassing.
We don't challenge it; on the contrary! Btw, I agree that Saint Pope Pius X wrote the Catechism which bears his name.
However, nowhere does the Catechism of Saint Pius X state that there are individuals in Paradise or in Purgatory, since the promulgation of the Gospel, who lack the character of sacramental Baptism. You are inserting words where none exist.
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
Saint Pope Pius X issued the catechism with his name on it during his reign as Pope. Looking at several other references, it says he wrote it. Even if someone else in the Vatican helped him write it, Saint Pope Pius X obviously takes full ownership of the catechism by putting his name on it and issuing it during his reign.
The Feeneyites are like desperate, cornered cats trying to challenge this catechism. It's really embarrassing.
There's a thread now on the subject of the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. Suffice it to say that I doubt that you have never seen or read the original, you have a bad translation.
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
Saint Pope Pius X issued the catechism with his name on it during his reign as Pope. Looking at several other references, it says he wrote it. Even if someone else in the Vatican helped him write it, Saint Pope Pius X obviously takes full ownership of the catechism by putting his name on it and issuing it during his reign.
The Feeneyites are like desperate, cornered cats trying to challenge this catechism. It's really embarrassing.
There's a thread now on the subject of the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. Suffice it to say that I doubt that you have never seen or read the original, you have a bad translation.
Pope Saint Pius X was Pope from 1903 to 1914. During his reign in 1908 the "Catechism of Pope Pius X" was published. Do you think Pope Saint Pius X was unaware that this catechism was published with his name attached to it during his reign???? Even if others in the Church were to have assisted him in writing the catechism, he clearly approved of publishing it, and took ownership of it by allowing his name to be associated with it. It's absolutely embarrassing that you are trying to challenge this catechism. You are clearly very desperate.
If I have a bad translation, please provide the correct translation, and the source from where you got it.
-
The quotes I gave were to show you that "soul of the Church" can be interpreted differently than what you said.
Like I asked and said: Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith. The use of the term soul of the Church to denote an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized, has been clearly rejected by Pius XII. Pius XII rejected it solemnly, the Catechism of Pius X is a local catechism, and is not infallible. To top it off, you have a bad translation!
Do you admit that now?
In fact, looking in "A Catholic Dictionary", it clearly states there are 2 interpretations of "soul of the Church". Here I will give you the full definition of "soul of the Church" as the book states:
"The soul of the Church. The Holy Ghost is the soul of the mystical body of Christ, the Church, as Pope Pius XII declares in Mystici Corporis Christi. But the expression "soul of the Church" has often been used in a metaphorical sense to designate all those who actually are in a state of grace in dependence on the merits of Christ and of the sanctifying action of the Holy Ghost; (I gave a sample of Abbot Marmion teaching this "metaphorical sense) many of these persons who are not seen to be members of the visible body of the Church (Abbot Marmion does not teach this. This is an error). But to say that such persons belonging to the "soul of the Church" is not altogether free from objection (A soft way to put it!). It is better to say of the non-Catholic in good faith that "he belongs invisibly to the Church," as being "related to the mystical Body of the Redeemer by some unconscious reaching out and desire" (Pope Pius XII). (Cf. Salvation ii; Visibility of the Church; Catholic ii.)"
My comments are in blue. This definition confirms what I was saying and it quotes Pius XII just like I did. It does not teach what you were trying to teach, that soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
So you can see there are 2 ways to look at the phrase "soul of the Church", and the one I'm referring to is exactly what Pope Pius X refers to when he stated, "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."
We were talking about the soul of the Church, you said that the unbaptized
belong to the soul of the Church. Pius XII specifically teaches that it is wrong to say there is a soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized. You were wrong and now you are trying to weasel out of it. AND still using the term soul of the Church in the wrong way "and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church"!
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
-
1) You have not quoted one Father of the Church teaching baptism of desire
First of all there is no need to since this doctrine has been taught throughout the entire history of the Church uncontested. Second of all, Saint Ambrose clearly teaches baptism of desire in the 4th century (see the quote on baptismofdesire.com). The Church has not declared this to be an error since he said it 16 centuries ago. Rather, the Church beatified him, canonized him, and made him Doctor of the Church, showing they approve and praise his teachings.
2) You have not defined what type of "baptism of desire" you believe
It is not the job of a layperson to define doctrines of the Church. The Church defines them, and we believe them. Period. If you need a definition, see what the Church teaches here: Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X)
3) You have not quoted from Canon Law anything to substantiate your erroneous interpretation of the term Soul of the Church
I have replied elsewhere on the 2 definitions of "soul of the Church" as defined in "A Catholic Dictionary". Furthermore, the quotes I did give from "A Commentary on Canon law" were certainly valid to show the metaphorical definition of "soul of the Church". This book was written by a professor of Canon Law (Rev. Augustine) and contains a nihil obstat and imprimatur. If such a book was a danger, the Church would have known immediately after it was published, and it would have been placed on the forbidden books index. Now 100 years later, there have been no objections to the book. It is a trusted Church reference.
4) You have not shown proof that Pius X wrote the Catechism of Pius X
I replied to this elsewhere. Even Benedict XVI states that Pope Pius X wrote this catechism.
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
Saint Pope Pius X issued the catechism with his name on it during his reign as Pope. Looking at several other references, it says he wrote it. Even if someone else in the Vatican helped him write it, Saint Pope Pius X obviously takes full ownership of the catechism by putting his name on it and issuing it during his reign.
The Feeneyites are like desperate, cornered cats trying to challenge this catechism. It's really embarrassing.
Why on earth are you making unfounded accusations against Pope St. Pius X? Do you seek truth or seek to be right? - Based on your posts, you cannot have both.
Just leave the good pope out of this and since you believe catechisms are infallible and hold jurisdiction over defined dogma, use a different catechism, any catechism will do since they are, after all, infallible (according to you) - - -use the CCC as it will certainly teach the same thing as you and your website which is an abomination.
We have one certified encyclical from Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis, specifically ordering that the Catechism of the Council of Trent be used for catechetical instruction.
We know that BOD was not in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. We also know this because if BOD were in that catechism, it would have contradicted at least three infallibly defined canons on the subject of the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.
Why do you continue to show that you believe that the CCC has jurisdiction OVER infallibly defined dogma?
-
The quotes I gave were to show you that "soul of the Church" can be interpreted differently than what you said.
Like I asked and said: Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith. The use of the term soul of the Church to denote an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized, has been clearly rejected by Pius XII. Pius XII rejected it solemnly, the Catechism of Pius X is a local catechism, and is not infallible. To top it off, you have a bad translation!
1. Please provide the exact quote from Pius XII where he solemnly condemns the definition of "soul of the Church" as clearly seen in the Commentary on Canon Law, Catechism of Pius X, and Catholic Dictionary.
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error. The almighty Bowler has already declared it, now please give us something prominent from the Church. If it is only Bowler that declares it, it holds no weight.
3. Which is it, bad translation, or that the catechism of Pius X is in error? It's one or the other. If it's a bad translation, give us the correct translation along with source from where you got it. If it is not a bad translation and the catechism of Pius X is truly in error, quote something from the Church that states so.
We'll all be waiting.
-
Like I asked and said: Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith. The use of the term soul of the Church to denote an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized, has been clearly rejected by Pius XII. Pius XII rejected it solemnly, the Catechism of Pius X is a local catechism, and is not infallible. To top it off, you have a bad translation!
1. Please provide the exact quote from Pius XII where he solemnly condemns the definition of "soul of the Church" as clearly seen in the Commentary on Canon Law, Catechism of Pius X, and Catholic Dictionary.
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error. The almighty Bowler has already declared it, now please give us something prominent from the Church. If it is only Bowler that declares it, it holds no weight.
3. Which is it, bad translation, or that the catechism of Pius X is in error? It's one or the other. If it's a bad translation, give us the correct translation along with source from where you got it. If it is not a bad translation and the catechism of Pius X is truly in error, quote something from the Church that states so.
We'll all be waiting.
-
1) You have not quoted one Father of the Church teaching baptism of desire
First of all there is no need to since this doctrine has been taught throughout the entire history of the Church uncontested. Second of all, Saint Ambrose clearly teaches baptism of desire in the 4th century (see the quote on baptismofdesire.com). The Church has not declared this to be an error since he said it 16 centuries ago. Rather, the Church beatified him, canonized him, and made him Doctor of the Church, showing they approve and praise his teachings.
You are full of it. What else can I say? You still have not quoted one Father (and you need more than one to show that it is "uncontested") teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, you have not posted any Father teaching that any Pagan, Jew, Heretic, or Schismatic can be saved by BOD.
I already posted St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom clearly condemning the exact, very idea that a catechumen could be saved by BOD. Here it is again. You are either a total fraud or in complete denial!
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.
2) You have not defined what type of "baptism of desire" you believe
It is not the job of a layperson to define doctrines of the Church. The Church defines them, and we believe them. Period. If you need a definition, see what the Church teaches here: Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X)
I didn't ask you to define doctrines. I asked you what you believe. You can't even answer a simple question. Are you afraid of something?
3) You have not quoted from Canon Law anything to substantiate your erroneous interpretation of the term Soul of the Church
I have replied elsewhere on the 2 definitions of "soul of the Church" as defined in "A Catholic Dictionary". Furthermore, the quotes I did give from "A Commentary on Canon law" were certainly valid to show the metaphorical definition of "soul of the Church". This book was written by a professor of Canon Law (Rev. Augustine) and contains a nihil obstat and imprimatur. If such a book was a danger, the Church would have known immediately after it was published, and it would have been placed on the forbidden books index. Now 100 years later, there have been no objections to the book. It is a trusted Church reference.
Strawman.
You said you were going to post proof of your version of soul of the Church from canon law. You did not. Moreover, the commentary on canon law that you supplied, does not teach your version of soul of the Church. The dictionary definition that you posted also does not teach your version, in fact it say exactly what I was telling you, that your interpretation was declared wrong by Pius XII!
-
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he didn't write it, he just approved it.
Saint Pope Pius X issued the catechism with his name on it during his reign as Pope. Looking at several other references, it says he wrote it. Even if someone else in the Vatican helped him write it, Saint Pope Pius X obviously takes full ownership of the catechism by putting his name on it and issuing it during his reign.
The Feeneyites are like desperate, cornered cats trying to challenge this catechism. It's really embarrassing.
Why on earth are you making unfounded accusations against Pope St. Pius X? Do you seek truth or seek to be right? - Based on your posts, you cannot have both.
Just leave the good pope out of this and since you believe catechisms are infallible and hold jurisdiction over defined dogma,
Accusations against Pope Saint Pius X??????????? You need to read closer - I am supporting Pope Saint Pius X and his catechism.
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
Infallibility. "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."
To remind you again, the First Vatican Council declared the ordinary magisterium as infallible and that we must believe it. Catechisms are part of that by the above definition.
-
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
That's your personal opinion again. You are totally winging it!
Private dictionaries (Attwood) and catechisms, even the ONLY TWO catechisms put out by the Vatican for universal use, The Catechism of Trent, and the current CCC are not infallible. It says it right on both editions.
Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
Take the Catechism of Pius X discussion to its own thread on CI Crisis in the Church section.
-
1) You have not quoted one Father of the Church teaching baptism of desire
First of all there is no need to since this doctrine has been taught throughout the entire history of the Church uncontested. Second of all, Saint Ambrose clearly teaches baptism of desire in the 4th century (see the quote on baptismofdesire.com). The Church has not declared this to be an error since he said it 16 centuries ago. Rather, the Church beatified him, canonized him, and made him Doctor of the Church, showing they approve and praise his teachings.
You are full of it. What else can I say? You still have not quoted one Father (and you need more than one to show that it is "uncontested") teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, you have not posted any Father teaching that any Pagan, Jew, Heretic, or Schismatic can be saved by BOD.
I already posted St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom clearly condemning the exact, very idea that a catechumen could be saved by BOD. Here it is again. You are either a total fraud or in complete denial!
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: “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.
-
2) You have not defined what type of "baptism of desire" you believe
It is not the job of a layperson to define doctrines of the Church. The Church defines them, and we believe them. Period. If you need a definition, see what the Church teaches here: Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X)
I didn't ask you to define doctrines. I asked you what you believe. You can't even answer a simple question. Are you afraid of exposing your real belief in implicit faith?
3) You have not quoted from Canon Law anything to substantiate your erroneous interpretation of the term Soul of the Church
I have replied elsewhere on the 2 definitions of "soul of the Church" as defined in "A Catholic Dictionary". Furthermore, the quotes I did give from "A Commentary on Canon law" were certainly valid to show the metaphorical definition of "soul of the Church". This book was written by a professor of Canon Law (Rev. Augustine) and contains a nihil obstat and imprimatur. If such a book was a danger, the Church would have known immediately after it was published, and it would have been placed on the forbidden books index. Now 100 years later, there have been no objections to the book. It is a trusted Church reference.
Strawman.
You said you were going to post proof of your version of soul of the Church from canon law. You did not. Moreover, the commentary on canon law that you supplied, does not teach your version of soul of the Church. The dictionary definition that you posted also does not teach your version, in fact it say exactly what I was telling you, that your interpretation was declared wrong by Pius XII!
-
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127:
“By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."[106]
-
1) I am an Augustinian with regard to baptism of desire. Here is short is what I believe:
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)
Therefore, I believe in EENS as it is written. What St. Augustine taught is exactly inline with the dogmatic decrees on EENS. I don't need to add any "qualifiers" to what the popes and councils have defined dogmatically to this present day.
What is EENS as it is written?
EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) translates to Outside of the Church there is no salvation. EENS as it is written means that we believe the dogmatic decrees on EENS exactly as the words say.
Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews 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[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
What those dogmatic Decrees Mean
From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Walthen
Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.[/size] They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
-
Accusations against Pope Saint Pius X??????????? You need to read closer - I am supporting Pope Saint Pius X and his catechism.
No you're not. Pope St. Pius X is the modern pope known for his preaching against Liberalism, which is the heresy that promotes the idea that few, if any, go to Hell. This is the Heresy of Universal Salvation, or Universalism. The rejection of the dogma and promotion of the heresy that there is salvation outside the Church. This heresy is where a BOD comes from - so to try to promote the idea that the pope, who certainly was known to be one of the most veracious opponents of said heresies actually taught BOD is completely and utterly preposterous to the Nth degree
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
You're understanding of infallibility and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is perverse. The UOM, as V2 proves, is perfectly capable of teaching error to the entire world. You even admit this fact via your refusal to quote the heretical CCC - whose teachings perfectly coincide with your beliefs.
FYI, the ONLY time the UOM's teaching is ex cathedra i.e. "free from the possibility of error" is when the UOM *repeat* that which has *previously* been Divinely Revealed through the Pope and or Council and has been infallibly defined. Beyond that, the UOM is perfectly capable, as V2 and the NO demonstrate for all to see and acknowledge, of teaching out right apostasy straight from the depths of hell to the entire world.
You have the whole idea so distorted that you do not even read what you yourself post.
Read below to read what the definition you posted actually is teaching:
Infallibility. "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."
To remind you again, the First Vatican Council declared the ordinary magisterium as infallible and that we must believe it. Catechisms are part of that by the above definition.
The first requirement in your definition is that everything they teach which is infallible is "subject to papal confirmation". When (not if) they teach anything other than that which has been confirmed (read: defined) via papal declarations as being binding on the entire Catholic world, they do not teach ex cathedra. This is the case with BOD.
The second requirement in your definition is like the first - they must teach what the pope has already defined or they are not in union with the pope. (read: there is danger of teaching error)
The third requirement states that whatever they teach must conform to that which is part of the deposit of faith, i.e. from the time of the Apostles and those teachings that we know to be true either from Divine Revelation defined ex cathedra or Scripture as interpreted by the Church or by tradition since the time of the Apostles.
In no way shape or form can the UOM nor the Fathers or Doctors or popes or theologians make a teaching infallible simply by their unanimous teaching of the same error - AS V2 CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES.
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
Uh, and where does it say that such an individual is non-baptized or dies without the character of sacramental Baptism?
-
The quotes I gave were to show you that "soul of the Church" can be interpreted differently than what you said.
Like I asked and said: Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith. The use of the term soul of the Church to denote an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized, has been clearly rejected by Pius XII. Pius XII rejected it solemnly, the Catechism of Pius X is a local catechism, and is not infallible. To top it off, you have a bad translation!
1. Please provide the exact quote from Pius XII where he solemnly condemns the definition of "soul of the Church" as clearly seen in the Commentary on Canon Law, Catechism of Pius X, and Catholic Dictionary.
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error. The almighty Bowler has already declared it, now please give us something prominent from the Church. If it is only Bowler that declares it, it holds no weight.
3. Which is it, bad translation, or that the catechism of Pius X is in error? It's one or the other. If it's a bad translation, give us the correct translation along with source from where you got it. If it is not a bad translation and the catechism of Pius X is truly in error, quote something from the Church that states so.
We'll all be waiting.
Bowler - you consistently ignore important questions like this. It's time you answered them. Spewing out pages of canned quotes on baptism that don't change anything is just a smokescreen. Again, I'll be waiting to hear your answers on these questions before responding to your other posts.
-
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
That's your personal opinion again. You are totally winging it!
Private dictionaries (Attwood) and catechisms, even the ONLY TWO catechisms put out by the Vatican for universal use, The Catechism of Trent, and the current CCC are not infallible. It says it right on both editions.
Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
I give you a definition from a trusted Catholic reference, and you say it's my personal opinion?????? Go back to earlier in this thread where we discussed the ordinary magisterium. When an individual doctrine is taught universally, that's when it becomes part of the ordinary magisterium. So we wouldn't say an entire catechism is infallible, but individual teachings within it, if they have been universally taught, would be considered part of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore infallible.
-
You're understanding of infallibility and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is perverse. The UOM, as V2 proves, is perfectly capable of teaching error to the entire world.
This directly opposes the teaching of the First Vatican Council and is not even Catholic. You have no business discussing Catholicism.
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
Uh, and where does it say that such an individual is non-baptized or dies without the character of sacramental Baptism?
Pope Saint Pius X is referring to a "person outside the Church". That means non-baptized!
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
Uh, and where does it say that such an individual is non-baptized or dies without the character of sacramental Baptism?
Pope Saint Pius X is referring to a "person outside the Church". That means non-baptized!
Hardly. What does he mean by "outside"? Is an infant who is baptized in a Protestant sect "outside" the Catholic Church? Yes, indeed, because if that infant dies, he/she is not entitled to a Mass of Christian Burial, even though it would be de fide that the soul of the infant is in Paradise. So, "outside" in Pope Pius X's catechism would have to mean outside the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church; otherwise, Saint Pope Pius X would be contradicting Cantate Domino:
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
So, every human being, without exception, must end his/her life in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," so the "outside" in the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X must refer to being "outside" of the canonical boundaries of the Church and not the Church itself. Even the 1949 Holy Office Letter acknowledges this:
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
-
You're understanding of infallibility and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is perverse. The UOM, as V2 proves, is perfectly capable of teaching error to the entire world.
This directly opposes the teaching of the First Vatican Council and is not even Catholic. You have no business discussing Catholicism.
This puerile accusation is plenty simple enough for you to prove and doing so will cease the condemnation of your scandalous website - simply stop using the pre-concilliar UOM and start using the post conciliar UOM and post conciliar fathers to justify your denial of EENS.
You will certainly find it much easier with much less debate on the matter using the Conciliar UOM's teachings to support your case, which BTW, are plentiful when it comes to denying the dogma - and since the Conciliar UOM and you have the same perverted belief in common, and since, according to your admittedly perverted understanding of the UOM's infallibility (whatever the UOM teaches is automatically infallible) you have more than enough ammo to shoot yourself right in the foot yet again.
So have at it, let's see some quotes from the infallible post conciliar UOM teachings that there really and truly actually is salvation outside the Church.
If you believe the absurdities that you've been spewing that the UOM is infallible whenever it teaches anything, then start spewing quotes from the Novus Ordo UOM and leave the saints and fathers and popes of the pre-conciliar Church who labored to bring souls *into the Church* for the hope of their salvation out of it.
Now, have at it! Let's see some of those infallible quotes from some NO encyclicals and the NO Catechism on the "soul of the Church" and how "desire and longing" makes one a member of the Church.
Perhaps in so doing, you will realize to whom it is that you are in good company with?
-
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
That's your personal opinion again. You are totally winging it!
Private dictionaries (Attwood) and catechisms, even the ONLY TWO catechisms put out by the Vatican for universal use, The Catechism of Trent, and the current CCC are not infallible. It says it right on both editions.
Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
I give you a definition from a trusted Catholic reference, and you say it's my personal opinion?????? Go back to earlier in this thread where we discussed the ordinary magisterium. When an individual doctrine is taught universally, that's when it becomes part of the ordinary magisterium. So we wouldn't say an entire catechism is infallible, but individual teachings within it, if they have been universally taught, would be considered part of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore infallible.
Strawman.
You said that catechisms are infallible. You supplied a quote which does not clearly substantiate your claim. I showed you a quote directly on the Catechism of Trent saying that it is not infallible.
You should engage your mind before you write your rage.
-
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
Uh, and where does it say that such an individual is non-baptized or dies without the character of sacramental Baptism?
Pope Saint Pius X is referring to a "person outside the Church". That means non-baptized!
I keep telling you to take this discussion about the Catechism of Pius X to the thread that has been created exclusively for this discussion. This is the third time I've told you. If you would go there you would learn that your translation has been doctored. The real translation from the original Italian is in the other thread. I have translated it to:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
Note that it says the person is baptized. That VERY important point is not in your translation. There is much more.
Take this discussion to its own thread entitled Catechism Of St Pius X
-
The quotes I gave were to show you that "soul of the Church" can be interpreted differently than what you said.
Like I asked and said: Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith. The use of the term soul of the Church to denote an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized, has been clearly rejected by Pius XII. Pius XII rejected it solemnly, the Catechism of Pius X is a local catechism, and is not infallible. To top it off, you have a bad translation!
1. Please provide the exact quote from Pius XII where he solemnly condemns the definition of "soul of the Church" as clearly seen in the Commentary on Canon Law, Catechism of Pius X, and Catholic Dictionary.
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error. The almighty Bowler has already declared it, now please give us something prominent from the Church. If it is only Bowler that declares it, it holds no weight.
3. Which is it, bad translation, or that the catechism of Pius X is in error? It's one or the other. If it's a bad translation, give us the correct translation along with source from where you got it. If it is not a bad translation and the catechism of Pius X is truly in error, quote something from the Church that states so.
We'll all be waiting.
Bowler - you consistently ignore important questions like this. It's time you answered them. Spewing out pages of canned quotes on baptism that don't change anything is just a smokescreen. Again, I'll be waiting to hear your answers on these questions before responding to your other posts.
You answer nothing and now you are upset because I keep asking you to answer, so you accuse me of the same thing. I answered all of these questions hours before you posted them at 1:22 am according to the CI clock. If English is not your first language please let me know.
Your question at 1:22 am - 1. Please provide the exact quote from Pius XII where he solemnly condemns the definition of "soul of the Church" as clearly seen in the Commentary on Canon Law, Catechism of Pius X, and Catholic Dictionary
My answer the night before at 7:23 pm
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127:
“By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."[106]
Your question at 1:22am- 2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error. The almighty Bowler has already declared it, now please give us something prominent from the Church. If it is only Bowler that declares it, it holds no weight.
My response at 6:38 PM the night before:
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
That's your personal opinion again. You are totally winging it!
Private dictionaries (Attwater) and catechisms, even the ONLY TWO catechisms put out by the Vatican for universal use, The Catechism of Trent, and the current CCC are not infallible. It says it right on both editions.
Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
Your question at 1:22 am - 3. Which is it, bad translation, or that the catechism of Pius X is in error? It's one or the other. If it's a bad translation, give us the correct translation along with source from where you got it. If it is not a bad translation and the catechism of Pius X is truly in error, quote something from the Church that states so.
My response the day before at 6:41pm -
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: 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."
Take the Catechism of Pius X discussion to its own thread on CI Crisis in the Church section.
That new thread specifically on the Catechism of Pius X contains my response at 3:00 pm the day before you wrote your quote at 1:22am, and it also contains a response at 6:01 the day before you posted your quote at 1:22am.
-
The quotes I gave were to show you that "soul of the Church" can be interpreted differently than what you said.
Like I asked and said: Are you debating my point that there is no soul of the Church that is an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized? There is no such soul of the Church, and those quotes that I provided would be sufficient for any Catholic who knows his faith. The use of the term soul of the Church to denote an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized, has been clearly rejected by Pius XII. Pius XII rejected it solemnly, the Catechism of Pius X is a local catechism, and is not infallible. To top it off, you have a bad translation!
1. Please provide the exact quote from Pius XII where he solemnly condemns the definition of "soul of the Church" as clearly seen in the Commentary on Canon Law, Catechism of Pius X, and Catholic Dictionary.
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error. The almighty Bowler has already declared it, now please give us something prominent from the Church. If it is only Bowler that declares it, it holds no weight.
3. Which is it, bad translation, or that the catechism of Pius X is in error? It's one or the other. If it's a bad translation, give us the correct translation along with source from where you got it. If it is not a bad translation and the catechism of Pius X is truly in error, quote something from the Church that states so.
We'll all be waiting.
Bowler - you consistently ignore important questions like this. It's time you answered them. Spewing out pages of canned quotes on baptism that don't change anything is just a smokescreen. Again, I'll be waiting to hear your answers on these questions before responding to your other posts.
1. I saw the quote from Pope Pius XII that you posted in another thread that you claim condemns "soul of the church". Here is the quote that you gave, "Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body."
There is absolutely no condemnation here. There is the body of the church, and the soul of the church. This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here. You are desperate. Very desperate.
2. You said the Catechism of Pope Pius X contains errors. I am asking you to show me who or where in the Catholic Church over the last 100 years has declared that this catechism contains errors? For example, Name a prominent Church figure who has declared this particular catechism was dangerous to the faithful, what errors were they complaining about, etc.
3. And I replied to your other thread about the supposed "bad translation" of the catechism of Pope Saint Pius X. The translation you gave was the same that I gave, and when you realized this, instead you tried to change the meaning of the actual words. Nice try. As I mentioned there, that is exactly how Luther operated; he took existing words of the Church and instead of relying on the Church for their meaning, he gave them his own meaning, thereby becoming a heretic. Posting lengthy quotes from the Church on here, then going out of your way to preach to all of us on what they mean in your eyes is pretty sad. You need to rely on the CHURCH for the meaning of doctrines, not your own.
-
1. I saw the quote from Pope Pius XII that you posted in another thread that you claim condemns "soul of the church". Here is the quote that you gave, "Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body."
There is absolutely no condemnation here. There is the body of the church, and the soul of the church. This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here.
Here is what I wrote again:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127:
“By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."[106]
Now you say that "This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here".
You've done a full circle and ended up where we started. You again say "a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church". I posted a snippet from Fr. Fenton (an advocate of baptism of desire) telling you that your definition was wrong. If you read his whole article you will understand that. If you read Mystici Corporis you will understand that, just like Fr. Fenton and others like him who used that phrase in the same way you do, corrected there positions.
From: GATE OF HEAVEN by Catherine Goddard Clarke 1952
pg 127
For the past one hundred and fifty years, at least, what has been taught in American seminaries, and in most Catholic seminaries of the world, is that when you say "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," you must not take those solemn words as the ancient Church, close to Christ and His Apostles, took them and as the Church universally taught them over eighteen centuries. You must now distinguish what you mean by "the Church."
There is, say these theorizers of the last one-hundred and fifty years, both the soul of the Church and the body of the Church, and some not belonging to the body might be said to belong to the soul. This expression: soul of the Church, first used among professional theologians, crept out and was finally given to the common people as a doctrinal phrase. Indeed, it went even further--until it was the only membership in the Church preached as necessary.
The expression "the soul of the Church" is but a metaphor. It was never intended to be used in more than a metaphorical sense, and that was the sense in which St. Augustine first used it. We could say that a martyr who had the choice between waiting for Baptism, or being martyred for professing he was going to receive it, could, by the shedding of his blood, be said to belong
Pg 128
in some way to the Church, and the phrase "the soul of the Church" could in that instance be used. It was never intended to be a partitioning of the Church into two parts, soul and body, of which the fuller members belong to both parts, and the lesser members to just one of the parts. But that is the way it is being used by the Liberal teachers of theology in the seminaries of the United States, so as to save embarrassment from having to teach Protestants unequivocally where it is they must be saved.
Orthodox doctrine can never change. Unsound theological opinion can change. And so we find the latest Liberals now discarding the distinction and evasion: "The soul of the Church." Typical of the Liberal theologians who have done this is Father Joseph Clifford Fenton, Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review, who, with Father Francis Connell, C.SS.R., is supposed to be one of the conservative theologians at Catholic University.
It is well known that Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical on the Mystical Body, insists that the only true sense in which we can use the phrase, "soul of the Church," is to apply it to the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who is the Soul of the Church. There is no "soul of the Church" in the sense in which it was formerly (erroneously) understood. This leaves the heretics and infidels out, since in no way can they be said to belong to the body of the Church.
And so we have Father Fenton now writing in the American Ecclesiastical Review that the phrase, "soul of the Church," should be used no longer. Father Matthew Smith, of the Denver Register, another supposed orthodox theologian, agrees With him. But all three priests, Father Fenton, Father Connell, and Father Smith, are still determined to allow some people not in the Church to get into heaven. In the pre war days of our generation, they used to say may I repeat:
With regard to the doctrine "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," that depends on what you mean by the Church.
pg 129
The new version is:
With regard to the doctrine "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," that depends on what you mean by outside. All have to belong to the body of the Church to be saved.
And so, to get around that, Father Fenton now makes the distinction between:
Explicitly belonging to the Church,
and
Implicitly belonging to the Church.
And this sinful and fraudulent distinction allows the same people who got out of being Catholics, by way of being part of the soul of the Church, now to get out of the challenge by being "implicitly" in the Church. Some Liberal priests have even gone so far as to say that this applies to some who would violently refuse the Church were it offered to them! These latter still belong to it, whether they know it or not, because they have some vague desire to go to heaven when they die and to lead (their own idea of) a moral life here on earth.
These are implicit members of the body of the Church, the Liberal theologians now tell us. The rest of us are explicit members.
The phraseology has changed. The heresy remains unaltered.
-
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error.
Strawman.
You said catechism were infallible, I responded showing you that they are not. I don't know how from that you come up with the opinion that "To say the Catechism of Pius X is not infallible is to say it is in error". Go and take your complaint to Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P.
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Let me give you, yet again, the definition of infallibility from A Catholic Dictionary:
That's your personal opinion again. You are totally winging it!
Private dictionaries (Attwood) and catechisms, even the ONLY TWO catechisms put out by the Vatican for universal use, The Catechism of Trent, and the current CCC are not infallible. It says it right on both editions.
Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
I give you a definition from a trusted Catholic reference, and you say it's my personal opinion?????? Go back to earlier in this thread where we discussed the ordinary magisterium. When an individual doctrine is taught universally, that's when it becomes part of the ordinary magisterium. So we wouldn't say an entire catechism is infallible, but individual teachings within it, if they have been universally taught, would be considered part of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore infallible.
Strawman.
You said that catechisms are infallible. You supplied a quote which does not clearly substantiate your claim. I showed you a quote directly on the Catechism of Trent saying that it is not infallible.
You should engage your mind before you write your rage.
-
1. I saw the quote from Pope Pius XII that you posted in another thread that you claim condemns "soul of the church". Here is the quote that you gave, "Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body."
There is absolutely no condemnation here. There is the body of the church, and the soul of the church. This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here.
Here is what I wrote again:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127:
“By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."[106]
Now you say that "This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here".
You've done a full circle and ended up where we started. You again say "a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church". I posted a snippet from Fr. Fenton (an advocate of baptism of desire) telling you that your definition was wrong. If you read his whole article you will understand that. If you read Mystici Corporis you will understand that, just like Fr. Fenton and others like him who used that phrase in the same way you do, corrected there positions.
From: GATE OF HEAVEN by Catherine Goddard Clarke 1952
pg 127
For the past one hundred and fifty years, at least, what has been taught in American seminaries, and in most Catholic seminaries of the world, is that when you say "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," you must not take those solemn words as the ancient Church, close to Christ and His Apostles, took them and as the Church universally taught them over eighteen centuries. You must now distinguish what you mean by "the Church."
There is, say these theorizers of the last one-hundred and fifty years, both the soul of the Church and the body of the Church, and some not belonging to the body might be said to belong to the soul. This expression: soul of the Church, first used among professional theologians, crept out and was finally given to the common people as a doctrinal phrase. Indeed, it went even further--until it was the only membership in the Church preached as necessary.
The expression "the soul of the Church" is but a metaphor. It was never intended to be used in more than a metaphorical sense, and that was the sense in which St. Augustine first used it. We could say that a martyr who had the choice between waiting for Baptism, or being martyred for professing he was going to receive it, could, by the shedding of his blood, be said to belong
Pg 128
in some way to the Church, and the phrase "the soul of the Church" could in that instance be used. It was never intended to be a partitioning of the Church into two parts, soul and body, of which the fuller members belong to both parts, and the lesser members to just one of the parts. But that is the way it is being used by the Liberal teachers of theology in the seminaries of the United States, so as to save embarrassment from having to teach Protestants unequivocally where it is they must be saved.
Orthodox doctrine can never change. Unsound theological opinion can change. And so we find the latest Liberals now discarding the distinction and evasion: "The soul of the Church." Typical of the Liberal theologians who have done this is Father Joseph Clifford Fenton, Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review, who, with Father Francis Connell, C.SS.R., is supposed to be one of the conservative theologians at Catholic University.
It is well known that Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical on the Mystical Body, insists that the only true sense in which we can use the phrase, "soul of the Church," is to apply it to the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who is the Soul of the Church. There is no "soul of the Church" in the sense in which it was formerly (erroneously) understood. This leaves the heretics and infidels out, since in no way can they be said to belong to the body of the Church.
And so we have Father Fenton now writing in the American Ecclesiastical Review that the phrase, "soul of the Church," should be used no longer. Father Matthew Smith, of the Denver Register, another supposed orthodox theologian, agrees With him. But all three priests, Father Fenton, Father Connell, and Father Smith, are still determined to allow some people not in the Church to get into heaven. In the pre war days of our generation, they used to say may I repeat:
With regard to the doctrine "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," that depends on what you mean by the Church.
pg 129
The new version is:
With regard to the doctrine "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," that depends on what you mean by outside. All have to belong to the body of the Church to be saved.
And so, to get around that, Father Fenton now makes the distinction between:
Explicitly belonging to the Church,
and
Implicitly belonging to the Church.
And this sinful and fraudulent distinction allows the same people who got out of being Catholics, by way of being part of the soul of the Church, now to get out of the challenge by being "implicitly" in the Church. Some Liberal priests have even gone so far as to say that this applies to some who would violently refuse the Church were it offered to them! These latter still belong to it, whether they know it or not, because they have some vague desire to go to heaven when they die and to lead (their own idea of) a moral life here on earth.
These are implicit members of the body of the Church, the Liberal theologians now tell us. The rest of us are explicit members.
The phraseology has changed. The heresy remains unaltered.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
The Sacrament of Baptism is the only Way into the Body of the Church
The Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess.14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’(1 Cor. 12:13).”
This definition is particularly significant because it proves that only through water baptism is one incorporated into the Body of the Church. Body membership is necessary for salvation.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
-
1. I saw the quote from Pope Pius XII that you posted in another thread that you claim condemns "soul of the church". Here is the quote that you gave,
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."
There is absolutely no condemnation here. There is the body of the church, and the soul of the church. This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here.
Well, what good is belonging to a metaphorical Invisible Church, a Soul of the Church, if they are not part of the Body? Pope Pius XII is telling you that
God does not dwell in those that are not in the Body; "He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body".
Every knowledgeable proponent of BOD since Fr. Fenton's time has dropped the use of the metaphor Soul of the Church. Only those amateur proponents of Implicit Faith like yourself that still consult out of date information use that metaphor. You are using out of date information like this:
Baltimore Catechism of 1921
It’s possible to belong to the “Soul” of the Church without belonging to
her Body. In this way those who die as members of non-Catholic religions can be joined to the Church and saved:
Q. 512 How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons 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 are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
This is why no knowledgeable proponent of BOD still uses that metaphor :
The Soul of the Church metaphor is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to an Invisible Church, the Soul of the Church, but not the Body. The purveyors of this teaching are forced to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore, they have to come up with another subjective form of "union" to save those who are OBJECTIVELY outside of the Church.
First, this error stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.” 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 Spirit is her soul.’”
Secondly, 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 Church, a Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by belonging to the Invisible 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 grievous and pernicious 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.”
Third, the most important 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 Jews, 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, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of
the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
-
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…”
At that very same Council, Pope Leo X also declared:
Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit.
Regardless of whether there are non-baptized members of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo X, in stating "all Christ's faithful," made it clear that anyone who is united to Jesus Christ must also be united to His Vicar, the Bishop of Rome. Most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox deny this, which places them outside of the Church of Christ.
-
From: GATE OF HEAVEN by Catherine Goddard Clarke 1952
As if quoting Catherine Goddard Clarke holds an ounce of weight. Yikes, that is embarrassing.
-
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error.
I don't know how from that you come up with the opinion that "To say the Catechism of Pius X is not infallible is to say it is in error".
You and I know very well that the "not infallible" argument is the number one, canned argument given by every feeneyite. It's been used in this discussion more than once and I've been hearing it my whole life. It translates to, "Yes, I see the Church reference you are quoting clearly teaches baptism of desire, but since I refuse to believe that doctrine, I will reply back with "that source is not infallible"". In other words, the source is in error.
If a quote is in error, the Church will catch it and declare it - that's how infallibility works. It's not up to me or you to declare errors without the Church doing so. So I am asking you, who in the Church has declared the Catechism of Pius X contains errors?
-
From: GATE OF HEAVEN by Catherine Goddard Clarke 1952
As if quoting Catherine Goddard Clarke holds an ounce of weight. Yikes, that is embarrassing.
Oh, yeah, quoting someone who died in full communion with the Holy See and who received a Mass of Christian Burial; yeah, really bad!
-
Every knowledgeable proponent of BOD since Fr. Fenton's time has dropped the use of the metaphor Soul of the Church. Only those amateur proponents of Implicit Faith like yourself that still consult out of date information use that metaphor. You are using out of date information like this:
Baltimore Catechism of 1921
It’s possible to belong to the “Soul” of the Church without belonging to
her Body. In this way those who die as members of non-Catholic religions can be joined to the Church and saved:
Q. 512 How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons 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 are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
This is why no knowledgeable proponent of BOD still uses that metaphor :
The Soul of the Church metaphor is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to an Invisible Church, the Soul of the Church, but not the Body. The purveyors of this teaching are forced to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore, they have to come up with another subjective form of "union" to save those who are OBJECTIVELY outside of the Church.
First, this error stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.”
So here is yet another trusted Church resource that "Bowler" has declared to be in error. I've completely lost track of all the trusted Church references that you have condemned in this discussion.
As I mentioned in the other discussion on the Catechism of Pius X, the Baltimore catechism was issued by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884 and approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for all Catholic schools in the United States, where it remained as the standard for for nearly a century. Even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after it was published, the quotes you give above on "the soul of the Church" and all of it's very clear teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood, have remained in that catechism the entire time.
So Pope Leo XIII approved the catechism for all schools in the United States, and Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII all upheld that approval for the next century. Now the all knowledgeable Bowler comes along, and knows better than all of these popes, telling the world this teaching is both outdated and in error. Thoroughly embarrassing. Doctrine doesn't change!
-
2. To say the Catechism of Pius X is "not infallible" is to say it is in error. Please show us one Church reference that declared this catechism contains an error.
I don't know how from that you come up with the opinion that "To say the Catechism of Pius X is not infallible is to say it is in error".
You and I know very well that the "not infallible" argument is the number one, canned argument given by every feeneyite.
You have no idea of what you talking about:
Father Laisney's thesis on baptism of desire and baptism of blood can not possibly be true. We certainly would have heard of it before now, and from some more reliable source than the Society of St. Pius X, like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or through our own bishop. On the contrary,when Father Feeney was"reconciled" to the Church in 1972 with the approval of Pope Paul VI, through the good offices of Cardinal Medeiros of Boston, and Bishop Flanagan of Worcester, he was not required to retract any of his speculations on baptism of desire or baptism of blood. Also my book They Fought the Good Fight (1987) (which, incidently Father Laisney does not include in his bibliography) which included Father Feeney's speculations on baptism of desire and baptism of blood, received the Imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy J. Harrington of Worcester, and the retired bishop of Worcester, Bernard J. Flanagan, acted as Censor deputatus. (4) Of course Father Laisney's book has no Imprimatur.
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
-
Jehanne, his posts allow us to assume SB13 is not invincibly ignorant, as such, we are perfectly justified to judge him as being bad willed.
Shake the dust.
-
1. I saw the quote from Pope Pius XII that you posted in another thread that you claim condemns "soul of the church". Here is the quote that you gave,
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."
There is absolutely no condemnation here. There is the body of the church, and the soul of the church. This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here.
Well, what good is belonging to a metaphorical Invisible Church, a Soul of the Church, if they are not part of the Body? Pope Pius XII is telling you that
God does not dwell in those that are not in the Body; "He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body".
Every knowledgeable proponent of BOD since Fr. Fenton's time has dropped the use of the metaphor Soul of the Church. Only those amateur proponents of Implicit Faith like yourself that still consult out of date information use that metaphor. You are using out of date information like this:
Baltimore Catechism of 1921
It’s possible to belong to the “Soul” of the Church without belonging to
her Body. In this way those who die as members of non-Catholic religions can be joined to the Church and saved:
Q. 512 How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons 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 are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
This is why no knowledgeable proponent of BOD still uses that metaphor :
The Soul of the Church metaphor is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to an Invisible Church, the Soul of the Church, but not the Body. The purveyors of this teaching are forced to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore, they have to come up with another subjective form of "union" to save those who are OBJECTIVELY outside of the Church.
First, this error stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.” 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 Spirit is her soul.’”
Secondly, 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 Church, a Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by belonging to the Invisible 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 grievous and pernicious 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.”
Third, the most important 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 Jews, 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, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of
the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
-
Dear saintbosco13,
YOU STILL have not quoted one Father (and you need more than one to show that it is "uncontested") teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, you have not posted any Father teaching that any Pagan, Jew, Heretic, or Schismatic can be saved by BOD.
1) You have not quoted one Father of the Church teaching baptism of desire
First of all there is no need to since this doctrine has been taught throughout the entire history of the Church uncontested. Second of all, Saint Ambrose clearly teaches baptism of desire in the 4th century (see the quote on baptismofdesire.com). The Church has not declared this to be an error since he said it 16 centuries ago. Rather, the Church beatified him, canonized him, and made him Doctor of the Church, showing they approve and praise his teachings.
You are full of it. What else can I say? You still have not quoted one Father (and you need more than one to show that it is "uncontested") teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, you have not posted any Father teaching that any Pagan, Jew, Heretic, or Schismatic can be saved by BOD.
I already posted St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom clearly condemning the exact, very idea that a catechumen could be saved by BOD. Here it is again. You are either a total fraud or in complete denial!
Here are St. Augustine and St. Ambrose speaking clearly against explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen:
-
Let me do a quick recap here.
Lots of quotes supporting baptism of water have been posted, and lots of quotes supporting baptism of desire/blood had been posted. Both have been spread out throughout the entire history of the Church, so there is no doubt that both have been openly taught all along. However, the Feeneyites actually try and pick off each of the baptism of desire/blood references, one at a time, and try to discredit them in some way. Let's look at the absurdity of this.
Church Fathers are quoted supporting it, and have never been condemned throughout the entire history of the Church for doing so. Many Saints and Doctors of the Church such as St. Cyril, St. John Chrystostome, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and St. Pope Pius X are clearly seen teaching the doctrine, yet the Feeneyites will throw out embarrassing arguments such as “they’re not infallible”. As if no one noticed they've been teaching errors all these centuries! Notice all of these Saints have never been condemned for teaching baptism of desire and blood. The Church never hesitated to condemn heretics and their teachings by name in the past, as we clearly see with people like Arius, Nestorius, and Luther, yet the Feeneyites will try to have us believe that either the Church didn't notice “errors” taught by these Saints all of these centuries, or otherwise that the Church simply remained quiet and allowed it. Also note that all of these Saints' writings have been scrutinized as part of their beatification, canonization, and in some cases Doctor of the Church processes, and the Church fully proceeded without hesitation. If these Saints were in error or considered heretics, it would have been declared during these processes, and would have been an impediment to proceeding. And if the Church somehow made a mistake and proceeded anyway, then other subsequent popes, bishops, priests, and Saints would have objected. Certainly these objections would be well docuмented in the last 2000 years. The Feeneyites have been asked repeatedly for even a single example of this. The result has been silence.
Next we have the Council of Trent, the greatest of all the Councils, openly teaching baptism of desire. Feeneyites try to sweep it under the rug. St. Alphonsus Ligouri reminds the faithful very clearly that the Council of Trent indeed taught it when he states, “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 of the Council of Trent". The Catholic Encyclopedia also reminds us that the Council of Trent taught it when it states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent.” The Feeneyites completely ignore all of this out of complete obstinacy.
Next we have trusted Catholic resources such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon Law, and A Catholic Dictionary, ALL openly teaching baptism of desire and blood. The Feeneyites will simply say “not infallible", implying that they have been in error all of these years. Let's look at the implications of this. The Baltimore catechism openly teaches baptism of desire (even after scrutiny and corrections), and this catechism was approved as the standard for all Catholic schools in the United States by Pope Leo XIII. No one in the Church objected. Pope St. Pius X succeeds him and not only upholds his decision to have this catechism be the standard for US schools, but he issues another catechism with the same teaching! No one in the Church objects. Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and ALL of the bishops and priests in the world during their reigns approve of all of this as well. Next, 1500 Catholic bishops, priests, professors, and authors from all over the world get together and create the Catholic Encyclopedia, which openly teaches baptism of desire and blood, with no objection from anyone in the Church. Next, Canon Law from the previous 1500 years of the Church is compiled under one cover by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV, and this compilation supports the threefold baptism as well. No one in the Church objects. “A Catholic Dictionary”, a trusted Catholic resource with multiple nihil obstats and imprimaturs, openly teaches the threefold baptism, and no one in the Church objects ever since.
Then the Feeneyites come along one day and say, “Oh but wait! I know this might sound strange but all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references that teach BOD/BOB have been in error all of these centuries and no one noticed”. Like anyone in their right mind is going to believe such an absurd argument.
I'm also amazed that the Feeneyites actually have the nerve to use the typical Protestant-like arguments like, "you are using a bad translation”, and “you have taken that quote out of context", and “Catholics no longer use that interpretation", and “the correct interpretation of the quote is actually …..”. When asked for the supposed correct translations and context, we get nothing back or some nonsense. These are all typical Protestant arguments like Luther used. Any Catholic knows that if we try to interpret quotes on our own, without the assistance of the Church, we will be in error just like the Protestants. Luther tried to tried to "save" the Church with his “correct” interpretations - it was nothing but heresy and he was condemned for it.
Lastly, to say every source that teaches the threefold baptism has been in error throughout the entire history of the Church is a direct denial of the dogma of infallibility. Feeneyites have no concept of it. Remember, there is a difference between infallibility of the Pope, and infallibility of the Church (look it up). Don't understand this, and you are lost. Infallibility of the Pope refers to when the Pope teaches ex cathedra, while infallibility of the Church refers to the Church being divinely kept from the possibility of error in teaching in matters of faith and morals. These promises of infallibility originate in Scripture and have always been taught by the Church, and must be believed. It is infallibility of the Church that I speak of when I say Feeneyites don't understand it. If the divinely founded Catholic Church, has been teaching error all of these centuries, it has been unfairly sending unsuspecting souls to damnation. It would be to completely deceive the faithful for Scripture to say the Church is the pillar of truth, and mandate that the faithful be members and consult it, then have error mixed throughout it. This would be a failure of the Church and like sending lambs to the slaughter. We have the promise from Scripture that the Holy Ghost would prevent this. So, for example, to say Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore catechism for all US schools while it contained a heresy in it is to say a true Vicar of Christ poisoned the Church. If this catechism were truly teaching a heresy, the Holy Ghost certainly would have seen to it that either Pope Leo XIII or subsequent popes would have corrected the problem so that the infallibility of the Church would not be compromised. To say otherwise is to say the Holy Ghost failed to protect the Church and that all 5 of these true vicars of Christ failed. That is clearly what Feeneyites believe - that there is no infallibility, and that all of the Popes, Saints, and long-established Church references are filled with error so that the faithful have nowhere to turn. Absolute absurdity.
The fact is, baptism of desire/blood has been taught throughout the entire history of the Church, and if it were heresy, the Holy Ghost would have seen to it that the Church step in and condemn it, as it did with Arianism, Protestantism, and so many other false teachings. The Feeneyites have been asked repeatedly for even ONE example of a condemnation from the Church of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, or anyone teaching them. The response has consistently been silence. We all know well that the Church has not condemned baptism of desire and blood because it APPROVES of it. That's how the Church works; it tacitly approves of day-to-day Church teaching, and speaks up when corrections are needed. Just as a mother does not need to verbally approve of every step and action her child takes; she simply speaks up when the child is in danger or has done something wrong.
Learn and understand infallibility of the Church. You cannot be a Catholic without understanding and believing it. Once you do, you will realize the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost and has allowed the teaching on the threefold baptism. Then you will no longer condemn all of the Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, and other trusted Church references, which is an endless, fruitless battle. It will also save your soul.
-
SB13,
You have to be one of the most disingenuous individuals whom I have met on this board. Hopefully, our moderator, Matthew, will read this and decide which one of us is being unreasonable, because I have asked the following questions of you now multiple times, but in each instance, you have refused to answer them:
1) Why did Father Feeney receive a public Mass of Christian burial from his bishop?
2) Why does His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManus, administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to followers of Father Feeney in Still River, MA where Father Feeney is buried?
3) Why was Brother Thomas Mary's book, They Fought the Good Fight, given an Imprimi potest, a book which contains Father Feeney's central ideas?
4) Why was Father Feeney's book Bread of Life never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum prior to the Index's suppression after Vatican II?
5) Why were several of Father Feeney's groups of followers regularized and granted canonical standing within the Catholic Church after the close of Vatican II?
-
My response in red. God Bless, Bowler
Let me do a quick recap here.
Lots of quotes supporting baptism of water have been posted (by me), and lots of quotes supporting baptism of desire/blood had been posted (If that was so, why didn't you EVER copy and paste them, when I asked you like 6 times or more?). Church Fathers are quoted supporting it, (not a one have you posted) ...
Next we have the Council of Trent, ..., openly teaching baptism of desire.
(of course no examples again)
Next we have trusted Catholic resources such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent...teaching baptism of desire and blood. (neither baptism of blood or desire are mentioned in the COT. Again no example!)
As to the rest, why waste any more time. You are not qualified to discuss the matter. Why waste any more time. Find someone who knows how to copy and paste quotes, and answer in the format of CI. Thank you for the opportunity to teach others how your belief in implicit faith is a novelty never taught by any Father, or St. Thomas and the Thomist, or any saint, and is condemned by the Athanasian Creed
-
0
-
My response in red. God Bless, Bowler
Let me do a quick recap here.
Lots of quotes supporting baptism of water have been posted (by me), and lots of quotes supporting baptism of desire/blood had been posted (If that was so, why didn't you EVER copy and paste them, when I asked you like 6 times or more?). Church Fathers are quoted supporting it, (not a one have you posted) ...
Next we have the Council of Trent, ..., openly teaching baptism of desire.
(of course no examples again)
Next we have trusted Catholic resources such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent...teaching baptism of desire and blood. (neither baptism of blood or desire are mentioned in the COT. Again no example!)
As to the rest, why waste any more time. You are not qualified to discuss the matter. Why waste any more time. Find someone who knows how to copy and paste quotes, and answer in the format of CI. Thank you for the opportunity to teach others how your belief in implicit faith is a novelty never taught by any Father, or St. Thomas and the Thomist, or any saint, and is condemned by the Athanasian Creed
-
1. I saw the quote from Pope Pius XII that you posted in another thread that you claim condemns "soul of the church". Here is the quote that you gave,
Mystici Corporis Pius XII:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."
There is absolutely no condemnation here. There is the body of the church, and the soul of the church. This quote refers to the body. Remember, according to Church references, a person can belong to the soul of the church while not belonging to the body of the church. Pope Pius XII is clearly not condemning this here.
Well, what good is belonging to a metaphorical Invisible Church, a Soul of the Church, if they are not part of the Body? Pope Pius XII is telling you that
God does not dwell in those that are not in the Body; "He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body".
Every knowledgeable proponent of BOD since Fr. Fenton's time has dropped the use of the metaphor Soul of the Church. Only those amateur proponents of Implicit Faith like yourself that still consult out of date information use that metaphor. You are using out of date information like this:
Baltimore Catechism of 1921
It’s possible to belong to the “Soul” of the Church without belonging to
her Body. In this way those who die as members of non-Catholic religions can be joined to the Church and saved:
Q. 512 How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons 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 are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
This is why no knowledgeable proponent of BOD still uses that metaphor :
The Soul of the Church metaphor is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to an Invisible Church, the Soul of the Church, but not the Body. The purveyors of this teaching are forced to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore, they have to come up with another subjective form of "union" to save those who are OBJECTIVELY outside of the Church.
First, this error stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.” 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 Spirit is her soul.’”
Secondly, 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 Church, a Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by belonging to the Invisible 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 grievous and pernicious 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.”
Third, the most important 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 Jews, 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, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of
the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
-
My response in red. God Bless, Bowler
Let me do a quick recap here.
Lots of quotes supporting baptism of water have been posted (by me), and lots of quotes supporting baptism of desire/blood had been posted (If that was so, why didn't you EVER copy and paste them, when I asked you like 6 times or more?). Church Fathers are quoted supporting it, (not a one have you posted) ...
Next we have the Council of Trent, ..., openly teaching baptism of desire.
(of course no examples again)
Next we have trusted Catholic resources such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent...teaching baptism of desire and blood. (neither baptism of blood or desire are mentioned in the COT. Again no example!)
As to the rest, why waste any more time. You are not qualified to discuss the matter. Why waste any more time. Find someone who knows how to copy and paste quotes, and answer in the format of CI. Thank you for the opportunity to teach others how your belief in implicit faith is a novelty never taught by any Father, or St. Thomas and the Thomist, or any saint, and is condemned by the Athanasian Creed
Bowler, throughout this discussion I was referring to the quotes on BOD/BOB as posted at baptismofdesire.com. I figured with one click you could easily go and look at them, so I didn't bother posting them here. I didn't think it would be that big of a deal to open up another website in another tab. Here are all of the quotes from Church resources as posted on that website, that support baptism of desire or blood. And btw, I guess I'm not surprised to see you dodge all the points I just made.
The quotes:
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century): "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".
· Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: TO JUBAIANUS, CONCERNING THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be baptized with."
· Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм under "de baptisme”: "In truth we also have a second laver which is the same as the first, namely that of blood, concerning which Our Lord said, "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized' (Luke 12:50) after He had already been baptized; for He came by water and blood as John wrote, that He might be baptized by water and glorified by blood, likewise too that He might make us called by water and chosen by blood; He poured forth these two baptisms from the wound dug in His side so that those who believed in His blood might be cleansed by water and those who were cleansed by water might bear His blood; this is the baptism which takes the place of the laver which has not been received and restores what was lost."
· St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм, (811): "If anyone does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation, excepting only martyrs who gain the kingdom even without water."
· St. John Chrystostome writes of Baptism of Blood (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."
· St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church, writes on Baptism of Desire (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."
· Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century): "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 Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys 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 administered 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)
· St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century): “Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.” (Summa Theologica; Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?)
· St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century): “Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." (Summa Theologica; Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?)
· St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century): Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."
· Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
· Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): "....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." [section on baptism]
· St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century): Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism: "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 of the Council of Trent"
· 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.”
· Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
[Note: The Baltimore Catechism was issued by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884, and was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States, where it remained the standard for nearly a century. Even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after being published, the content on the threefold baptism has remained in the catechism to this day.]
· 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."
· St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of St. Pius X issued in 1908: 17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
· Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”
· Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).
· Canon Law (1917): “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737). “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
· A Catholic Dictionary (~1931): Baptism, The Sacrament of: "Baptism by water, blood, or desire is necessary to salvation".
· Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951): "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."
-
Bowler, throughout this discussion I was referring to the quotes on BOD/BOB as posted at baptismofdesire.com.
Is that your website or a friends? You seem to be an advertiser for that website. Your answer is analogous to me saying go to the Dimond's website. It's a whole world of information there at the Dimond's that would take years to read and answer.
If you have a specific point to make, make it with authoritative quotes, and not by sending someone basically to "talk to so and so", the producer of a website.
-
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century): "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".
· Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: TO JUBAIANUS, CONCERNING THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be baptized with."
(the two above are the same quote)
· Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм under "de baptisme”: "In truth we also have a second laver which is the same as the first, namely that of blood, concerning which Our Lord said, "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized' (Luke 12:50) after He had already been baptized; for He came by water and blood as John wrote, that He might be baptized by water and glorified by blood, likewise too that He might make us called by water and chosen by blood; He poured forth these two baptisms from the wound dug in His side so that those who believed in His blood might be cleansed by water and those who were cleansed by water might bear His blood; this is the baptism which takes the place of the laver which has not been received and restores what was lost."
· St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм, (811): "If anyone does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation, excepting only martyrs who gain the kingdom even without water."
· St. John Chrystostome writes of Baptism of Blood (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."
The only three Fathers that you quote are not talking about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, they are talking about baptism of blood. I never asked you for quotes about baptism of blood. My discussion with you has never been is not about baptism of blood. The only mention I made of baptism of blood is this one which is self explanatory:
BOD/BOB is a unanimous teaching throughout the history of the Church as seen from the large list of references already posted.
I can't find any "large list of references already posted".
Here is the list, which was mentioned earlier in the thread. All of these sources are quoted on baptismofdesire.com as supporting the threefold baptism.
Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)
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.
-
· St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church, writes on Baptism of Desire (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."
Of ALL of the Fathers, this is THE ONLY Father of the Church quote about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen that you will come up with. That is the "eulogy of Valentinian". I did a large writing explaining that quote. Go to the thread Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen , and see my third posting. Any questions leave them there.
-
· St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church, writes on Baptism of Desire (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."
Of ALL of the Fathers, this is THE ONLY Father of the Church quote about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen that you will come up with. That is the "eulogy of Valentinian". I did a large writing explaining that quote. Go to the thread Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen , and see my third posting. Any questions leave them there.
Perhaps Ambrose was of the opinion that Valentine was, in fact, saramentally baptized, just not by him, Saint Ambrose. So, when he said "did not receive the sacrament of baptism," he was referring to fact that he, Saint Ambrose, did not perform that sacrament but perhaps someone else did.
P.S. SB13 refuses to answer my questions.
-
· Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century): "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 Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys 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 administered 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)
This obscure letter to a bishop has no magisterial authority whatsoever.
Pope Innocent III had every chance to infallible define any other exceptions to the constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" is to be taken absolutely. Yet he didn't mention any when he declared infallible:
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
More importantly:
There is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not been baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II or III– and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic?
To illustrate the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter allegedly from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire and Deception (pp. 31-32):
“We speak of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope Innocent II (1130-1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of Cremona. The latter had written an inquiry to the Pope regarding the case of a priest who apparently had died without being baptized. Of course, it has been defined that, in such a case, he was no priest, since the sacrament of orders may only be conferred validly upon the baptized.
---- Text of letter omitted because it has been listed already ----
“Now, there are more than a few problems connected with this letter. Firstly, it depends entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for its conclusion. Its premises are false, as the Fathers in question did not actually hold the opinions herein imputed to them. (author: as noted a mere sentimental speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as official teaching)…
“Lastly, there is even a question of who wrote this letter. Many authorities ascribe it to Innocent III (1198-1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger. The letter is certainly not in keeping with the totality of his declarations either. In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter of uncertain date, authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and contradicting innumerable indisputably valid and solemn docuмents, is pretended to carry the weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders. Were any other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not even be given any consideration. As we shall see, however, mystification and deception are part and parcel of the history of this topic of Salvation. Perhaps this letter was attributed to Innocent III because of his statement that the words of consecration at Mass do not actually have to be said by the priest, but only thought internally --- a sort of Eucharist by Desire. Later Saint Thomas Aquinas took him to task on this point.
“But Innocent III is indeed the key to understanding the original teaching of the Church on this topic. It was in his time (as always until the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore) forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic parents) in consecrated ground. He explained the rationale for this law, writing: ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive’ (Decr. III, XXVIII, xii).” - end of transcript from Desire and Deception.
These considerations dismiss any argument in favor of baptism of desire from this letter. The letter, while certainly not infallible, may indeed be a forgery.
-
Dear saintbosco13,
YOU STILL have not quoted one Father (and you need more than one to show that it is "uncontested") teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, you have not posted any Father teaching that any Pagan, Jew, Heretic, or Schismatic can be saved by BOD.
The above question is what we are talking about here now. You answered with only one Father of the Church supposedly teaching Explicit BOD of the catechumen. You have like 12 CLEAR and SPECIFIC quotes from me from the Fathers Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine. I could post tons more Fathers that teach that one must be baptized to be saved, but you would say that that does not mean that they were against baptism of desire. Well, if they were, why didn't any Father say so, why don't you have any quotes in favor of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen?
(And you can forget about any quotes from the Fathers about the salvation of any Pagan, Jew, heretic and schismatic by "implicit faith in a god that rewards", it does not exist. In fact there are no quotes from the Fathers on even St. Thomas' implicit baptism of desire to be a Catholic.)
The bottom line is that the teaching of EVEN explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is not universal in time. Do you know what that means?
AND most importantly, you have to ask yourself, how come in 2000 years the Holy Ghost has never declared baptism of desire in any form when making infallible decrees? Not a one in 2000 years!
-
· St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church, writes on Baptism of Desire (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."
Of ALL of the Fathers, this is THE ONLY Father of the Church quote about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen that you will come up with. That is the "eulogy of Valentinian". I did a large writing explaining that quote. Go to the thread Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen , and see my third posting. Any questions leave them there.
Perhaps Ambrose was of the opinion that Valentine was, in fact, saramentally baptized, just not by him, Saint Ambrose. So, when he said "did not receive the sacrament of baptism," he was referring to fact that he, Saint Ambrose, did not perform that sacrament but perhaps someone else did.
P.S. SB13 refuses to answer my questions.
I think Migne said that Ambrose knew that Valentinian had been baptized before he died. If you take this to the other thread I'll look up the quote and post it.
-
Dear saintbosco13,
YOU STILL have not quoted one Father (and you need more than one to show that it is "uncontested") teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, you have not posted any Father teaching that any Pagan, Jew, Heretic, or Schismatic can be saved by BOD.
The above question is what we are talking about here now. You answered with only one Father of the Church supposedly teaching Explicit BOD of the catechumen. You have like 12 CLEAR and SPECIFIC quotes from me from the Fathers Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine. I could post tons more Fathers that teach that one must be baptized to be saved, but you would say that that does not mean that they were against baptism of desire. Well, if they were, why didn't any Father say so, why don't you have any quotes in favor of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen?
(And you can forget about any quotes from the Fathers about the salvation of any Pagan, Jew, heretic and schismatic by "implicit faith in a god that rewards", it does not exist. In fact there are no quotes from the Fathers on even St. Thomas' implicit baptism of desire to be a Catholic.)
The bottom line is that the teaching of EVEN explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is not universal in time. Do you know what that means?
AND most importantly, you have to ask yourself, how come in 2000 years the Holy Ghost has never declared baptism of desire in any form when making infallible decrees? Not a one in 2000 years!
Bowler, you have completely ignored the points I made in my recap, and now have made several posts since then repeating things that you've already said. I'm not looking to go down the same road and repeat everything all over again.
You have been given a list of quotes from trusted Church sources, and you're actually attempting to condemn each one of them, one by one, by yourself, when the Church has never done so. An endless fruitless battle that you will never succeed in. Presented with a list of quotes that undeniably shows the Church has been teaching baptism of desire and blood all along without any restriction from the Church, you are just shooting in all directions without focusing, because you can't handle that fact. Trying to give the argument that I've only given x quotes from the Fathers, and that you require y quotes, is lame, and is not going to change the overall fact that the threefold baptism has been taught throughout the entire history of the Church. 20 quotes is not enough for you, so you ask for 21. If I give 21, then you'll ask for 22. Quantity of quotes is obviously not what you need at this point - you are missing the underlying point, which I have enumerated in my recap a few posts back. If you want to make for a fruitful discussion, respond to the points in the recap so I don't have to keep repeating myself. I'll be waiting.
-
P.S. SB13 refuses to answer my questions.
Sorry Jehanne, I'm not trying to be rude to you. It's one thing that you don't believe in the threefold baptism, but when you at the same time quote Vatican II and related resources as support for your arguments, I don't even know where to begin with you. The threefold baptism is a monstrous enough topic - I can't be trying to get you to realize the errors of Vatican II at the same time. You are just going to have to read and learn more about the situation in the Church first. Try traditionalmass.org. I only have so much time in a day.
-
Bowler, throughout this discussion I was referring to the quotes on BOD/BOB as posted at baptismofdesire.com.
Is that your website or a friends? You seem to be an advertiser for that website. Your answer is analogous to me saying go to the Dimond's website. It's a whole world of information there at the Dimond's that would take years to read and answer.
If you have a specific point to make, make it with authoritative quotes, and not by sending someone basically to "talk to so and so", the producer of a website.
Baptismofdesire.com is a one-page website. When you go there, you can't miss the quotes; they are right there on the homepage.
-
P.S. SB13 refuses to answer my questions.
Sorry Jehanne, I'm not trying to be rude to you. It's one thing that you don't believe in the threefold baptism, but when you at the same time quote Vatican II and related resources as support for your arguments, I don't even know where to begin with you. The threefold baptism is a monstrous enough topic - I can't be trying to get you to realize the errors of Vatican II at the same time. You are just going to have to read and learn more about the situation in the Church first. Try traditionalmass.org. I only have so much time in a day.
What a cop-out. Just answer one question, then:
Why is His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManus, giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to Catholics who profess and promote the theology of Father Feeney and who even have his seminal book, the Bread of Life, for sale on their website?
-
You have been given a list of quotes from trusted Church sources, and you're actually attempting to condemn each one of them, one by one, by yourself, when the Church has never done so.
Strawman. I gave you authoritative quotes from the same Fathers that disprove your one quote.
Catholics do not determine truth by if the Church has directly condemned a quote by some saint. We determine truth by dogma. My Fathers of the Church quotes disproved your one quote. The bottom line is that explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen was not taught by any Father.
I don't write to convince you, obviously no one is going to convince you, since you believe that a person can be saved who does not have an explicit desire to be baptized, or a desire to be a Catholic, or a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation (Jesus Christ). On this matter, you are a modernist.
I write for those with eyes to see.
-
You have been given a list of quotes from trusted Church sources, and you're actually attempting to condemn each one of them, one by one, by yourself, when the Church has never done so.
Strawman. I gave you authoritative quotes from the same Fathers that disprove your one quote.
Catholics do not determine truth by if the Church has directly condemned a quote by some saint. We determine truth by dogma. My Fathers of the Church quotes disproved your one quote. The bottom line is that explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen was not taught by any Father.
I don't write to convince you, obviously no one is going to convince you, since you believe that a person can be saved who does not have an explicit desire to be baptized, or a desire to be a Catholic, or a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation (Jesus Christ). On this matter, you are a modernist.
I write for those with eyes to see.
So I will take this response as a refusal to address the points in my recap. Am I correct?
-
SB13,
If you are refusing to answer my simple question, then I think that others should refuse to answer yours. In fact, I think that Matthew should ban you for your refusal to address me, a member of this board.
-
Interestingly, ever since baptismofdesire.com went online many months ago, it has been presented numerous times to several of the most well-known Feeneyites, asking for specifics on any errors within the site. What has been the response? Dead silence.
Only two unknown Feeneyites have surfaced to try and challenge the site. The first has changed his position - he sees the light now. The second has fallen silent and refuses to answer. It's the same thing over and over and over with these cowards (a word which describes them perfectly).
I rest my case.
-
Interestingly, ever since baptismofdesire.com went online many months ago, it has been presented numerous times to several of the most well-known Feeneyites, asking for specifics on any errors within the site. What has been the response? Dead silence.
Only two unknown Feeneyites have surfaced to try and challenge the site. The first has changed his position - he sees the light now. The second has fallen silent and refuses to answer. It's the same thing over and over and over with these cowards (a word which describes them perfectly).
I rest my case.
I would not say it is interesting that the scandalous site was able to convert one into belief that a mythical non-scarament which produces non-Catholic saints due the mythical unforeseen death is dubbed as doctrine of the Catholic Church, I'd say that it's a tragedy.
As for the errors on that site - the entire site is filled with error and has been refuted absolutely numberless times to anyone who "hath ears to hear".
The silence you refer to is the result of them "shaking the dust off their feet".
-
Interestingly, ever since baptismofdesire.com went online many months ago, it has been presented numerous times to several of the most well-known Feeneyites, asking for specifics on any errors within the site. What has been the response? Dead silence.
Only two unknown Feeneyites have surfaced to try and challenge the site. The first has changed his position - he sees the light now. The second has fallen silent and refuses to answer. It's the same thing over and over and over with these cowards (a word which describes them perfectly).
I rest my case.
I would not say it is interesting that the scandalous site was able to convert one into belief that a mythical non-scarament which produces non-Catholic saints due the mythical unforeseen death is dubbed as doctrine of the Catholic Church, I'd say that it's a tragedy.
As for the errors on that site - the entire site is filled with error and has been refuted absolutely numberless times to anyone who "hath ears to hear".
The silence you refer to is the result of them "shaking the dust off their feet".
You are just another face in the sea of Feeneyites who thrives on drive-by postings saying, "the entire site is filled with error", then running off in the distance without being specific. The typical Feeneyite method of operation....
-
Time to find a new hobby Feeneyites. You have officially lost the battle.
:applause:
-
Yeah call them names, you Cushingite.
-
Interestingly, ever since baptismofdesire.com went online many months ago, it has been presented numerous times to several of the most well-known Feeneyites, asking for specifics on any errors within the site. What has been the response? Dead silence.
Only two unknown Feeneyites have surfaced to try and challenge the site. The first has changed his position - he sees the light now. The second has fallen silent and refuses to answer. It's the same thing over and over and over with these cowards (a word which describes them perfectly).
I rest my case.
I would not say it is interesting that the scandalous site was able to convert one into belief that a mythical non-scarament which produces non-Catholic saints due the mythical unforeseen death is dubbed as doctrine of the Catholic Church, I'd say that it's a tragedy.
As for the errors on that site - the entire site is filled with error and has been refuted absolutely numberless times to anyone who "hath ears to hear".
The silence you refer to is the result of them "shaking the dust off their feet".
You are just another face in the sea of Feeneyites who thrives on drive-by postings saying, "the entire site is filled with error", then running off in the distance without being specific. The typical Feeneyite method of operation....
Your kidding right? You cannot tell that site is as prot as vaticanassasins.com? Hard for me to believe but that's what error does - it blinds you.
I just glanced at that scandalous site - you really should fix your entire reference to "2. Ordinary Magisterium:" - once you do, your whole site will crumble into the toilet where it belongs.
-
Your kidding right? You cannot tell that site is as prot as vaticanassasins.com? Hard for me to believe but that's what error does - it blinds you.
I just glanced at that scandalous site - you really should fix your entire reference to "2. Ordinary Magisterium:" - once you do, your whole site will crumble into the toilet where it belongs.
If you can provide something from the Church that is better/more accurate on the Ordinary Magisterium, I'll gladly replace it for you. Since you are certain the reference is erroneous, where should a Catholic look for more information on the subject?
-
Do you own the site? Do you mention to people that you are a sede? Here is the email which I sent to the site's admin:
He (Father Feeney) was never excommunicated nor was he ever declared a public heretic. You need to remember that a lot of theologians during Pope Pius XII's time were censored by the Holy Office, not just Father Feeney. Besides, even the Holy Office Letter acknowledges that EENS is a defined dogma:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
So, EENS is infallible, no? If true, this means that we are bound to understand the Dogma in the same sense in which it was understood when it was defined. What you don't seem to realize is that Father Feeney's ideas which he presented in his The Bread of Life are theological opinions, nothing more. Again, the Holy Office Letter stated that Father Feeney erred by "attack(ing) the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities..." But, the Holy Office Letter nowhere specifies the degree of his theological error. "Was Father Feeney a public heretic?" The Holy Office Letter does not say. "Was he guilty of only theological error?" The Holy Office Letter does not say. "Proximate to heresy?" Ditto.
But, for argument's sake, let's say that there are individuals in Paradise who, since the Law of Baptism, have died without its character? Consider this from the Roman Catechism:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tpray01.htm
Now, compare it to the new Catechism:
http://198.62.75.12/www1/CDHN/pater1.html#THY
Pretty incredible, eh? Here's the paragraph which is missing from the new Catechism:
That Unbelievers May Be Converted
Thus, then, as the heavenly spirits with perfect unanimity exalt and glorify God, so do we pray that the same be done over all the earth; that all nations may come to know, worship, and reverence God; that all without a single exception may embrace the Christian religion, may devote themselves wholly to the service of God, and may be convinced that in Him is the source of all sanctity and that there is nothing pure, nothing holy, that does not proceed from the sanctity of His divine name. According to the testimony of the Apostle, The church is cleansed by the laver of water in the word of life. and the word of life signifies the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in which we are baptised and sanctified.
And since there is no expiation, no purity, no integrity, in him over whom the divine name has not been invoked, we desire and pray that all mankind may abandon the darkness of their impious infidelity, and, enlightened by the rays of divine light, may come to recognise the power of this name and look to it alone for true sanctity, and that thus receiving the Sacrament of Baptism in the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, they may receive the plenitude of sanctity from the right hand of God Himself.
This is what BoD and "implicit desire" gets you! "By their fruits..."
Blessings,
Me
-
I heard from the dimond brothers that they were contacted by one of the people who runs the Baptismofdesire website and the dimond brothers asked if they could
have a telephone debate, but the person who runs the Baptismofdesire website refused, maybe he was chicken, I don't know.
-
I heard from the dimond brothers that they were contacted by one of the people who runs the Baptismofdesire website and the dimond brothers asked if they could
have a telephone debate, but the person who runs the Baptismofdesire website refused, maybe he was chicken, I don't know.
I heard about that, too. The fact is, the Dimonds rely on fast talk, and diverting the subject during vocal debate. They cannot withstand the patient, meticulous docuмentation of organized, discursive, written debate. They will refuse it because they know their position cannot withstand that careful, docuмented scrutiny.
-
I heard from the dimond brothers that they were contacted by one of the people who runs the Baptismofdesire website and the dimond brothers asked if they could
have a telephone debate, but the person who runs the Baptismofdesire website refused, maybe he was chicken, I don't know.
Interesting too, I heard the owner of baptismofdesire.com asked the Dimond brothers for an e-mail debate multiple times, but they refused. Maybe they too were chicken, I don't know.
-
He's been debating me via email, and he told me to stop replying to him!
P.S. If you want to discuss this issue further with me, take it over to my other thread. I want to ponder a bit the "implications" of this whole BoD/BoB thing. In particular, so what?!
-
Interesting too, I heard the owner of baptismofdesire.com asked the Dimond brothers for an e-mail debate multiple times, but they refused. Maybe they too were chicken, I don't know.
Notice ,, They are "Baulking at you" for a discussion by "Email", which is very time consuming , as "who said what" etc . What do you have against doing it by a taped debate for all to hear, as he has done with others. ?
-
Interesting too, I heard the owner of baptismofdesire.com asked the Dimond brothers for an e-mail debate multiple times, but they refused. Maybe they too were chicken, I don't know.
Notice ,, They are "Baulking at you" for a discussion by "Email", which is very time consuming , as "who said what" etc . What do you have against doing it by a taped debate for all to hear, as he has done with others. ?
The answer to this is very simple. If someone were to quiz you on 2000 years of Catholicism, would you know all of the answers off the top of your head? Obviously not. The fact is, research is almost always needed when discussing such an in-depth subject spanning 20 centuries. It's not too much to ask to have a discussion in writing so each side has time to research what they are replying with. This is not a contest to see who knows everything off the top of their head.
E-mail discussions are far more convenient as you can reply on your own good time! You choose what time you want to put into it. The fact of the matter is, I've had multiple e-mail debates with the Dimonds over the years, and in each case they have fallen silent and refused to reply. Now they don't reply at all. I guess it's pretty upsetting when a one page website reduces your 300 page book to nothing but kindling for the fireplace.
-
Interesting too, I heard the owner of baptismofdesire.com asked the Dimond brothers for an e-mail debate multiple times, but they refused. Maybe they too were chicken, I don't know.
Notice ,, They are "Baulking at you" for a discussion by "Email", which is very time consuming , as "who said what" etc . What do you have against doing it by a taped debate for all to hear, as he has done with others. ?
The answer to this is very simple. If someone were to quiz you on 2000 years of Catholicism, would you know all of the answers off the top of your head? Obviously not. The fact is, research is almost always needed when discussing such an in-depth subject spanning 20 centuries. It's not too much to ask to have a discussion in writing so each side has time to research what they are replying with. This is not a contest to see who knows everything off the top of their head.
E-mail discussions are far more convenient as you can reply on your own good time! You choose what time you want to put into it. The fact of the matter is, I've had multiple e-mail debates with the Dimonds over the years, and in each case they have fallen silent and refused to reply. Now they don't reply at all. I guess it's pretty upsetting when a one page website reduces your 300 page book to nothing but kindling for the fireplace.
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
-
Interesting too, I heard the owner of baptismofdesire.com asked the Dimond brothers for an e-mail debate multiple times, but they refused. Maybe they too were chicken, I don't know.
Notice ,, They are "Baulking at you" for a discussion by "Email", which is very time consuming , as "who said what" etc . What do you have against doing it by a taped debate for all to hear, as he has done with others. ?
The answer to this is very simple. If someone were to quiz you on 2000 years of Catholicism, would you know all of the answers off the top of your head? Obviously not. The fact is, research is almost always needed when discussing such an in-depth subject spanning 20 centuries. It's not too much to ask to have a discussion in writing so each side has time to research what they are replying with. This is not a contest to see who knows everything off the top of their head.
E-mail discussions are far more convenient as you can reply on your own good time! You choose what time you want to put into it. The fact of the matter is, I've had multiple e-mail debates with the Dimonds over the years, and in each case they have fallen silent and refused to reply. Now they don't reply at all. I guess it's pretty upsetting when a one page website reduces your 300 page book to nothing but kindling for the fireplace.
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Then, according to bowler, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguouri, two Doctors of the Church, lost the faith or their marbles for promoting the concepts of implicit desire and implicit faith, and nobody for centuries in the Church noticed!!
We all know where that puts you, bowler. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
-
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Then, according to bowler, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguouri, two Doctors of the Church, lost the faith or their marbles for promoting the concepts of implicit desire and implicit faith, and nobody for centuries in the Church noticed!!
We all know where that puts you, bowler. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
Anyone that would says that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ANY Father, Saint or Doctor of the Church taught what saintbosco13 believes (that a person who does not want to explicitly want to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or the Trinity can be saved by BOD) does not know enough to discuss the subject. They should stick to down thumbing what they don't know.
-
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Wow, poor Bowler is pretty upset today - probably tired of getting kicked around like a soccer ball in these forums.
Interesting you would say I oppose "ALL" of the Fathers, Doctors, Saints etc on the subject of the threefold baptism - the quotes in support of it on baptismofdesire.com happen to be from 10 Church Fathers, 10 Doctors of the Church, 13 of which are Saints, and also 4 Popes. I guess they all lost their marbles too?
Next you'll try to convince us the sky is not blue.
-
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Then, according to bowler, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguouri, two Doctors of the Church, lost the faith or their marbles for promoting the concepts of implicit desire and implicit faith, and nobody for centuries in the Church noticed!!
We all know where that puts you, bowler. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
Anyone that would says that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ANY Father, Saint or Doctor of the Church taught what saintbosco13 believes (that a person who does not want to explicitly want to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or the Trinity can be saved by BOD) does not know enough to discuss the subject. They should stick to down thumbing what they don't know.
sb13 explained it accurately according to the Saints and Doctors, and you are in denial. I mean, you have seen the literal quotes! You believe that St. Thomas and Alphonsus either lost the faith or were insane. That is really sick. The Church even permits Her clergy to baptize a non-Catholic who is dying, with very little time left, without getting an explicit affirmation of belief in the Incarnation and Trinity. That is what I remember reading a few months ago. The Church is divine and holy and cannot permit such a thing if it were harmful or wrong.
-
probably tired of getting kicked around like a soccer ball in these forums.
That's not nice. Even if we disagree we shouldn't talk like that.
-
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Then, according to bowler, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguouri, two Doctors of the Church, lost the faith or their marbles for promoting the concepts of implicit desire and implicit faith, and nobody for centuries in the Church noticed!!
We all know where that puts you, bowler. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
Anyone that would says that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ANY Father, Saint or Doctor of the Church taught what saintbosco13 believes (that a person who does not want to explicitly want to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or the Trinity can be saved by BOD) does not know enough to discuss the subject. They should stick to down thumbing what they don't know.
sb13 explained it accurately according to the Saints and Doctors, and you are in denial. I mean, you have seen the literal quotes! You believe that St. Thomas and Alphonsus either lost the faith or were insane. That is really sick. The Church even permits Her clergy to baptize a non-Catholic who is dying, with very little time left, without getting an explicit affirmation of belief in the Incarnation and Trinity. That is what I remember reading a few months ago. The Church is divine and holy and cannot permit such a thing if it were harmful or wrong.
What difference does it make - the popes have infallibly defined the necessity of the Sacrament for all time so whatever any other saint or doctor may have said is silenced forever more - so why continue to quote anyone contradicting the defined dogma as though the dogma doesn't exist or doesn't contradict?
-
Are there any dogmas other than EENS that Catholics disagree about? I don't think there are. Not counting the fact that modernists deny all the dogmas of course.
-
Bowler is even more stubborn than Stubborn and that is really stubborn.
I have tried to reason with him now for months, that seem like years, :geezer: but as I said, he can't see it.
-
Are there any dogmas other than EENS that Catholics disagree about? I don't think there are. Not counting the fact that modernists deny all the dogmas of course.
I hope not, but you only have to deny one to be outside the Church.
-
Your position Myrna has also not changed so you could say that you are just as stubborn as bowler or stubborn.
-
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Then, according to bowler, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguouri, two Doctors of the Church, lost the faith or their marbles for promoting the concepts of implicit desire and implicit faith, and nobody for centuries in the Church noticed!!
We all know where that puts you, bowler. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
Anyone that would says that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ANY Father, Saint or Doctor of the Church taught what saintbosco13 believes (that a person who does not want to explicitly want to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or the Trinity can be saved by BOD) does not know enough to discuss the subject. They should stick to down thumbing what they don't know.
sb13 explained it accurately according to the Saints and Doctors, and you are in denial. I mean, you have seen the literal quotes! You believe that St. Thomas and Alphonsus either lost the faith or were insane. That is really sick. The Church even permits Her clergy to baptize a non-Catholic who is dying, with very little time left, without getting an explicit affirmation of belief in the Incarnation and Trinity. That is what I remember reading a few months ago. The Church is divine and holy and cannot permit such a thing if it were harmful or wrong.
What difference does it make - the popes have infallibly defined the necessity of the Sacrament for all time so whatever any other saint or doctor may have said is silenced forever more - so why continue to quote anyone contradicting the defined dogma as though the dogma doesn't exist or doesn't contradict?
Now your donning the ol' Feeneyite blinders.
It is impossible for Aquinas and Liguouri to have been beatified, canonized and declared Doctors, with all the intense official scrutiny of their works, and for nobody to have noticed that they publicly called into doubt previously taught solemn dogma. IMPOSSIBLE.
Talk about losing your marbles, or the faith!
-
Why should anyone lower themselves to "debate" with a know nothing like saintbosco13? The only reason I can think of is to use Bosco to show the idiocy of BODers who believe that a person who explicitely does not want to be a Catholic, or baptized, can be saved.
Bosco13 believes that such a person can be saved. He is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (from the Fathers)!
One has to have lost the faith or his marbles to oppose ALL of tradition like that.
Wow, poor Bowler is pretty upset today - probably tired of getting kicked around like a soccer ball in these forums.
Interesting you would say I oppose "ALL" of the Fathers, Doctors, Saints etc on the subject of the threefold baptism - the quotes in support of it on baptismofdesire.com happen to be from 10 Church Fathers, 10 Doctors of the Church, 13 of which are Saints, and also 4 Popes. I guess they all lost their marbles too?
Next you'll try to convince us the sky is not blue.
It looks like I gave you more credit than you deserve if believe that what you believe has anything to do with "the three fold baptism".
No Father, Doctor or Saint taught that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or Trinity, can still be saved.
-
Bowler is even more stubborn than Stubborn and that is really stubborn.
I have tried to reason with him now for months, that seem like years, :geezer: but as I said, he can't see it.
Without using any old books, let's see how you reason out of this again..........
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Now.....
How many Lords are there?
How many faiths are there?
How many baptisms are there?
Nicene Creed: ..confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.. (..I confess one baptism for the remission of sins..)
How many baptisms are there?
Council of Trent: CANON II.-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.
Under pain of anathema, is water necessary for baptism?
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Under pain of anathema, is the sacrament of baptism necessary unto salvation?
Hard to believe that there are those who believe salvation without the sacrament is a doctrine of the Church, as they wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord.
-
No Father, Doctor or Saint taught that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or Trinity, can still be saved.
I am tempted to say you are a liar, but I will say, instead, that you have a terrible memory. Haven't you been given quotes already from Saints & Doctors who promoted implicit desire and faith?
-
No Father, Doctor or Saint taught that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or Trinity, can still be saved.
I am tempted to say you are a liar, but I will say, instead, that you have a terrible memory. Haven't you been given quotes already from Saints & Doctors who promoted implicit desire and faith?
The evolution of words does not change what a saint said, just what the sheeple believe.
I repeat, no Father, Doctor, or Saint, ever taught (and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed) what saintbosco13 believes, that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Incarantion, can be saved.
The implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas (same with Alphonsus Ligouri), who was a Thomist) required that the person explicitly desire to be a Catholilc and believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity. As far as the theory of implicit faith, which is the belief that "a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Incarantion, can be saved", it was not taught by one Father, Doctor, or Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed.
Do you understand now?
-
Your position Myrna has also not changed so you could say that you are just as stubborn as bowler or stubborn.
Matto, I am doing exactly what any Catholics should do, stay firm to the teachings we have learned from the beginning.
If you want to call that stubborn, then it is what it is, stubborn.
What about you, have you been changing from one to another side?
I do get the feeling you are sitting on the fence, be careful don't fall off on the wrong side.
-
Bowler is even more stubborn than Stubborn and that is really stubborn.
I have tried to reason with him now for months, that seem like years, :geezer: but as I said, he can't see it.
Without using any old books, let's see how you reason out of this again..........
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Now.....
How many Lords are there?
How many faiths are there?
How many baptisms are there?
Nicene Creed: ..confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.. (..I confess one baptism for the remission of sins..)
How many baptisms are there?
Council of Trent: CANON II.-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.
Under pain of anathema, is water necessary for baptism?
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Under pain of anathema, is the sacrament of baptism necessary unto salvation?
Hard to believe that there are those who believe salvation without the sacrament is a doctrine of the Church, as they wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord.
Do I hear an echo in this forum, you posted this exact post awhile back.
Of course I believe all that, and BOD/BOB is NOT a Sacrament, yes, there is only ONE Sacrament of Baptism. However.... God is not bound by His Sacraments and He can favor who He wishes. If they meet His requirements and die before the Sacrament of Baptism was given.
Now go back where you posted this the first time and read the details. I have no desire to go over all this again and again.
I will sit back now and watch Midas Welby defend the Faith. :popcorn:
-
No Father, Doctor or Saint taught that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or Trinity, can still be saved.
I am tempted to say you are a liar, but I will say, instead, that you have a terrible memory. Haven't you been given quotes already from Saints & Doctors who promoted implicit desire and faith?
The evolution of words does not change what a saint said, just what the sheeple believe.
I repeat, no Father, Doctor, or Saint, ever taught (and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed) what saintbosco13 believes, that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Incarantion, can be saved.
The implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas (same with Alphonsus Ligouri), who was a Thomist) required that the person explicitly desire to be a Catholilc and believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity. As far as the theory of implicit faith, which is the belief that "a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Incarantion, can be saved", it was not taught by one Father, Doctor, or Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed.
Do you understand now?
Bowler, Look at the quotes where implicit and explicit desire is taught; the Church simply teaches it and doesn't get hung up on all of these caveats like you do. Here they are again:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas: "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly".
2. St. Alphonsus Liguori: "...accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water".
3. St. Pope Pius X: "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism".
4. The Holy Office in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII): "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire...".
It is you who are making up these supposed distinctions in your head!
-
There is another thread with everyone coming down on Pope Francis for teaching the same thing as you believe and you defend here. This was my comment there:
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)
This is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:
The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.
I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.
Well, here you have Pope Francis teaching it, where are all of those people who down thumbs me at every turn every time I bring up this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents? Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from him or teach the same as him (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr!
This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.
-
No Father, Doctor or Saint taught that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor believes in the Incarnation or Trinity, can still be saved.
I am tempted to say you are a liar, but I will say, instead, that you have a terrible memory. Haven't you been given quotes already from Saints & Doctors who promoted implicit desire and faith?
The evolution of words does not change what a saint said, just what the sheeple believe.
I repeat, no Father, Doctor, or Saint, ever taught (and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed) what saintbosco13 believes, that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Incarantion, can be saved.
The implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas (same with Alphonsus Ligouri), who was a Thomist) required that the person explicitly desire to be a Catholilc and believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity. As far as the theory of implicit faith, which is the belief that "a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and Incarantion, can be saved", it was not taught by one Father, Doctor, or Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed.
Do you understand now?
Bowler, Look at the quotes where implicit and explicit desire is taught; the Church simply teaches it and doesn't get hung up on all of these caveats like you do. Here they are again:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas: "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly".
2. St. Alphonsus Liguori: "...accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water".
3. St. Pope Pius X: "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism".
4. The Holy Office in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII): "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire...".
It is you who are making up these supposed distinctions in your head!
You do not give sources for your snippet quotes. Secondly, those three saints are not teaching anything in your quotes, the words have no definitions in your quotes. You clearly either don't know the subject or you are an "implicit faith believer snake" hiding behind the baptism of desire and implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
The fourth source, the 1949 letter, is not A Father, Doctor, or Saint, and IS opposed to the Athanasian Creed of the Church Fathers (make your choice, either you go with the Athanasian Creed of the Fathers or that fallible private letter to a bishop with no AAS number there is no in between)
-
There is another thread with everyone coming down on Pope Francis for teaching the same thing as you believe and you defend here. This was my comment there:
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)
This is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:
The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.
I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.
Well, here you have Pope Francis teaching it, where are all of those people who down thumbs me at every turn every time I bring up this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents? Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from him or teach the same as him (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr!
This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.
-
You do not give sources for your snippet quotes. Secondly, those three saints are not teaching anything in your quotes, the words have no definitions in your quotes. You clearly either don't know the subject or you are an "implicit faith believer snake" hiding behind the baptism of desire and implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
The fourth source, the 1949 letter, is not A Father, Doctor, or Saint, and IS opposed to the Athanasian Creed of the Church Fathers (make your choice, either you go with the Athanasian Creed of the Fathers or that fallible private letter to a bishop with no AAS number there is no in between)
Bowler, since you require spoon feeding, here are the full quotes. Read them and weep - they all say the same exact thing and are very clearly worded. As for the 1949 letter from the Holy Office, the archbishop of Boston plainly states when publishing the letter, "The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision", so the source of the letter requires no further discussion.
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Saint Alphonsus, Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95, Concerning Baptism: "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 pres-byt-ero non baptizato" and of 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.'"
Saint Alphonsus, On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism of Pius X, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts): "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
-
You do not give sources for your snippet quotes. Secondly, those three saints are not teaching anything in your quotes, the words have no definitions in your quotes. You clearly either don't know the subject or you are an "implicit faith believer snake" hiding behind the baptism of desire and implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
The fourth source, the 1949 letter, is not A Father, Doctor, or Saint, and IS opposed to the Athanasian Creed of the Church Fathers (make your choice, either you go with the Athanasian Creed of the Fathers or that fallible private letter to a bishop with no AAS number there is no in between)
Bowler, since you require spoon feeding, here are the full quotes. Read them and weep - they all say the same exact thing and are very clearly worded. As for the 1949 letter from the Holy Office, the archbishop of Boston plainly states when publishing the letter, "The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision", so the source of the letter requires no further discussion.
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Saint Alphonsus, Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95, Concerning Baptism: "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 pres-byt-ero non baptizato" and of 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.'"
Saint Alphonsus, On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism of Pius X, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts): "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
With regard to the quotes by St. Thomas and St.Alphonus Ligouri- You clearly either don't know the subject or you are an "implicit faith believer snake" hiding behind the baptism of desire and implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
With regard to the Catechism of Pius X - it is a bad translation that you are using, moreover, it was not written by Pius X.
with regard to the 1949 - it has no AAS number, it is not written by a Father, Doctor, Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed
I said that no Father, Doctor, or Saint has ever taught salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, the belief that a person can be saved if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You have not shown any proof against what I said.
I don't know of any BOD writer who has ever claimed that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, as a matter of fact salvation by implicit faith in Christ is not mentioned by any theologian till way after St. Thomas was dead.
By your reasoning and salivating at the word "implict" being used by a saint, I suppose that to you, during the cινιℓ ωαr, all of the men of the North were ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, since the song says "we'll all feel gαy when Johnnie comes marching home".
-
Two different animals, both have only one thing in common, the word implicit
A)The theory of salvation by implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Example: a person who desires to be a Catholic, and believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he has no one to baptize him, or he does not know that he needs to be baptized, and he dies.
F) The theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, which DOES NOT required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Example: A Jew, Muslim, or Bhuddist who worships his god in all love and belief can be saved, although he does not believe in Christ or his Church. (place your own example here if you don't like mine)
-
You do not give sources for your snippet quotes. Secondly, those three saints are not teaching anything in your quotes, the words have no definitions in your quotes. You clearly either don't know the subject or you are an "implicit faith believer snake" hiding behind the baptism of desire and implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
The fourth source, the 1949 letter, is not A Father, Doctor, or Saint, and IS opposed to the Athanasian Creed of the Church Fathers (make your choice, either you go with the Athanasian Creed of the Fathers or that fallible private letter to a bishop with no AAS number there is no in between)
Bowler, since you require spoon feeding, here are the full quotes. Read them and weep - they all say the same exact thing and are very clearly worded. As for the 1949 letter from the Holy Office, the archbishop of Boston plainly states when publishing the letter, "The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision", so the source of the letter requires no further discussion.
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Saint Alphonsus, Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95, Concerning Baptism: "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 pres-byt-ero non baptizato" and of 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.'"
Saint Alphonsus, On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism of Pius X, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts): "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
With regard to the quotes by St. Thomas and St.Alphonus Ligouri- You clearly either don't know the subject or you are an "implicit faith believer snake" hiding behind the baptism of desire and implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation.
With regard to the Catechism of Pius X - it is a bad translation that you are using, moreover, it was not written by Pius X.
with regard to the 1949 - it has no AAS number, it is not written by a Father, Doctor, Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed
I said that no Father, Doctor, or Saint has ever taught salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, the belief that a person can be saved if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. You have not shown any proof against what I said.
I don't know of any BOD writer who has ever claimed that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, as a matter of fact salvation by implicit faith in Christ is not mentioned by any theologian till way after St. Thomas was dead.
By your reasoning and salivating at the word "implict" being used by a saint, I suppose that to you, during the cινιℓ ωαr, all of the men of the North were ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, since the song says "we'll all feel gαy when Johnnie comes marching home".
My gosh Bowler, you sound like an insane person. The quotes are put right in your face, and you pretend like they are not there. You are obviously here just to stir the pot, and I'm not going to waste anymore time chasing your insane arguments. You are like the "Bugs Bunny" of Cathinfo; you step in and demand the sky isn't blue just to get a rise out of everybody, then you sit back and watch the turmoil with a grin on your face. I'm not going to waste my time with your posts anymore. The proof has been shown to you, now you need to submit to the Church.
-
My gosh Bowler, you sound like an insane person. The quotes are put right in your face, and you pretend like they are not there. You are obviously here just to stir the pot, and I'm not going to waste anymore time chasing your insane arguments. You are like the "Bugs Bunny" of Cathinfo; you step in and demand the sky isn't blue just to get a rise out of everybody, then you sit back and watch the turmoil with a grin on your face. I'm not going to waste my time with your posts anymore. The proof has been shown to you, now you need to submit to the Church.
You are in denial, there is not one trad writer of BOD that teaches that St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught the theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Not only are you ignoring all the Father, Saints, Doctors, you are also ignoring the very writers who defend BOD.
I don't think you have the mental wherewithal to discuss this subject if you don't understand the differences in the use of the word "implicit" after I posted this above this comment. You are confusing lightning with lightning bug. One will kill you, the other is nothing.
Two different animals, both have only one thing in common, the word implicit
A)The theory of salvation by implicit desire for baptism of St. Thomas, which required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Example: a person who desires to be a Catholic, and believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he has no one to baptize him, or he does not know that he needs to be baptized, and he dies.
F) The theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, which DOES NOT required an explicit desire to be a Catholic and the belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Example: A Jew, Muslim, or Bhuddist who worships his god in all love and belief can be saved, although he does not believe in Christ or his Church. (place your own example here if you don't like mine)
-
sb13, because these people are allowed this way of acting perpetually, this site is becoming a haven and refuge for Feeneyites. If I was moderator, I would step in and "moderate".
-
with regard to the 1949 (letter from the Holy office) - it has no AAS number, it is not written by a Father, Doctor, Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed
Just for the record, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis was established by the Church in 1909 for docuмenting laws enacted by the Church. Those laws are assigned an AAS number as an official way of recording them. Though the letter from the Holy Office in 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston was a private letter (looking at the letter in Canon Law Digest, the word "private" is shown in place of where you would normally see in AAS number). Again, that is because this was not an official "enacted law" by the Holy See, but a private letter published for the world to see after the fact.
As we can see from A Commentary on Canon Law (1918) under Canon 9, a law may not necessarily be assigned an AAS number:
"The laws enacted by the Apostolic See are promulgated by being published in the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless some other mode of promulgation is prescribed in particular cases."
-
SB13,
Are you a geocentrist? If not, why not:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp
"That the Sun is the centre of the universe and doth not move from his place is a proposition absurd and false in philosophy, and formerly heretical; being expressly contrary to Holy Writ: That the Earth is not the centre of the universe nor immoveable, but that it moves, even with a diurnal motion, is likewise a proposition absurd and false in philosophy, and considered in theology ad minus erroneous in faith.....
By the way, the Holy Office, and not Galileo and Copernicus, was right; the Sun does move. However, the Holy Office was wrong; the Earth moves, also.
-
sb13, because these people are allowed this way of acting perpetually, this site is becoming a haven and refuge for Feeneyites. If I was moderator, I would step in and "moderate".
I've brought this up several times. I think it might be time for some sort of explanation as to why these errors are allowed to be promoted here.
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with Fr. Feeney.
-
sb13, because these people are allowed this way of acting perpetually, this site is becoming a haven and refuge for Feeneyites. If I was moderator, I would step in and "moderate".
I've brought this up several times. I think it might be time for some sort of explanation as to why these errors are allowed to be promoted here.
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with Fr. Feeney.
I don't know. Most other forums don't allow the discussion of sedevacantism and it is allowed here. Would SV be considered an error?
-
I don't know. Most other forums don't allow the discussion of sedevacantism and it is allowed here. Would SV be considered an error?
Most other forums do not want it discussed because it makes sense to them, and then they have to make a decision that they do not want to make. In other words it makes them think.
-
I don't know. Most other forums don't allow the discussion of sedevacantism and it is allowed here. Would SV be considered an error?
Most other forums do not want it discussed because it makes sense to them, and then they have to make a decision that they do not want to make. In other words it makes them think.
And just to be clear, I am thrilled that we can actually talk about it here. I was just wondering whether the BOD/BOB discussions are similar in that it should be okay to discuss it.....maybe not? I always thought it was Catholic teaching, but nowadays who the heck knows? KWIM?
-
“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God’ (Jn. 3:5), made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven’ (Mt. 10:32); and in another place, ‘Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it’ (Mt. 16:25). And this explains the verse, ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints’ (Ps. 115:15). For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.”
—St. Augustine
-
sb13, because these people are allowed this way of acting perpetually, this site is becoming a haven and refuge for Feeneyites. If I was moderator, I would step in and "moderate".
I've brought this up several times. I think it might be time for some sort of explanation as to why these errors are allowed to be promoted here.
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with Fr. Feeney.
None of you supposed critics of "Feeneyism" can even list a single "error" of Feeneyism. If you can, please do so now.
-
“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God’ (Jn. 3:5), made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven’ (Mt. 10:32); and in another place, ‘Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it’ (Mt. 16:25). And this explains the verse, ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints’ (Ps. 115:15). For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.”
—St. Augustine
Why not quote Saint Augustine on his teaching that unbaptized infants suffer a positive punishment in Hell? Fact is that Augustine changed his mind on some things, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. (See below.)
-
“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God’ (Jn. 3:5), made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven’ (Mt. 10:32); and in another place, ‘Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it’ (Mt. 16:25). And this explains the verse, ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints’ (Ps. 115:15). For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.”
—St. Augustine
Why not quote Saint Augustine on his teaching that unbaptized infants suffer a positive punishment in Hell? Fact is that Augustine changed his mind on some things, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. (See below.)
Prove it!
-
Prove it!
Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: “When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself (believe me) in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say.”2 And in another place he writes that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: “Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works.”3 This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory nαzιanzen: “Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment.”4 St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: “The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness.”5
http://www.cmri.org/02-children_baptism.html
-
“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God’ (Jn. 3:5), made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven’ (Mt. 10:32); and in another place, ‘Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it’ (Mt. 16:25). And this explains the verse, ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints’ (Ps. 115:15). For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.”
—St. Augustine
Why not quote Saint Augustine on his teaching that unbaptized infants suffer a positive punishment in Hell? Fact is that Augustine changed his mind on some things, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. (See below.)
What possesses a person like Myrna (a typical believer in BOD) to post a quote about salvation of the "unbaptized persons who die confessing Christ" and salvation of those "Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before my Father" , when they themselves believe and teach that someone who has no wish to die confessing Christ, nor wanting anything to do with His Church, can be saved by their "implicit faith in Christ"?
This is just pure insanity to me.
-
when they themselves believe and teach that someone who has no wish to die confessing Christ, nor wanting anything to do with His Church, can be saved by their "implicit faith in Christ"?
You are mistaken as usual about my beliefs. You know what they say about people who assume, don't you.
-
With regard to the Catechism of Pius X - it is a bad translation that you are using, moreover, it was not written by Pius X.
By the way, here is the official letter from Pope Saint Pius X to Cardinal Pietro Respighi approving the Catechism of Christian Doctrine that he supposedly knew nothing about! The date of the letter is October 18, 1912.
Letter from Pope Saint Pius X in 1912 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/docuмents/hf_p-x_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html)
-
With regard to the Catechism of Pius X - it is a bad translation that you are using, moreover, it was not written by Pius X.
By the way, here is the official letter from Pope Saint Pius X to Cardinal Pietro Respighi approving the Catechism of Christian Doctrine that he supposedly knew nothing about! The date of the letter is October 18, 1912.
Letter from Pope Saint Pius X in 1912 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/docuмents/hf_p-x_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html)
What does my saying that you have a bad translation have to do with what you posted? The original catechism was written in Italian.
There is not one Father, Saint, Doctor, of the Church that ever wrote in favor of salvation of the unbaptized by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, as it is used today. Pius X did not write the catechism, nor did he write your translation. (by the way, I should be saying that I have never heard in all of my years of any Father.... For it could be there is one, however, one does not mean anything)
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under 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”.
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. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
-
With regard to the Catechism of Pius X - it is a bad translation that you are using, moreover, it was not written by Pius X.
By the way, here is the official letter from Pope Saint Pius X to Cardinal Pietro Respighi approving the Catechism of Christian Doctrine that he supposedly knew nothing about! The date of the letter is October 18, 1912.
Letter from Pope Saint Pius X in 1912 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/docuмents/hf_p-x_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html)
What does my saying that you have a bad translation have to do with what you posted? The original catechism was written in Italian.
There is not one Father, Saint, Doctor, of the Church that ever wrote in favor of salvation of the unbaptized by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, as it is used today. Pius X did not write the catechism, nor did he write your translation. (by the way, I should be saying that I have never heard in all of my years of any Father.... For it could be there is one, however, one does not mean anything)
When you think about it Bowler, now that we see the letter above from Pope Saint Pius X approving the Catechism Of Christian Doctrine (which was published with his name on the front cover), why bother arguing who wrote it? The letter shows he approved of it. End of story.
As for your desperate argument that I am using a bad translation of the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, you can very easily search the Internet for the original Italian version of The Catechism of Christian Doctrine (do a search for "Catechismo della dottrina Cristiana"), you can then do a search within that for "Battesimo di desiderio" (baptism of desire). Isn't it funny, but even all of the Italian versions of the catechism say the same exact thing as the English on baptism of desire! What a surprise! In performing the search over and over myself, 100% of the Italian copies of the catechism are the same as the English.
When you've cried "bad translation" in the past, you were asked for the correct translation, but no matter how many times you were asked, you never presented it. We all know why that is Bowler - because you're just throwing the argument out there to be obstinate.
-
I bet the Pope never read the Catechism!
J/K
-
SB13,
The Catechism of Saint Pius X was a Q&A catechism consisting of hundreds of such questions. Yet the following question is missing:
Q. Are there souls in Paradise who, after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, lack the character of that Sacrament?
A. Yes.
Pretty simple, yet missing. Trent could have said the same thing:
If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who, having ended their lives after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, nonetheless, lack the character of that Sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent defined 125 such anathemas and yet the above is nowhere to be found. Saint Augustine's opinion (see below) is still valid!
-
SB13,
The Catechism of Saint Pius X was a Q&A catechism consisting of hundreds of such questions. Yet the following question is missing:
Q. Are there souls in Paradise who, after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, lack the character of that Sacrament?
A. Yes.
Pretty simple, yet missing. Trent could have said the same thing:
If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who, having ended their lives after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, nonetheless, lack the character of that Sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent defined 125 such anathemas and yet the above is nowhere to be found. Saint Augustine's opinion (see below) is still valid!
And yet the Catechism of St Pius X says:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Like I said, I guess the Pope didn't actually read the Catechism he gave approval to.
-
SB13,
The Catechism of Saint Pius X was a Q&A catechism consisting of hundreds of such questions. Yet the following question is missing:
Q. Are there souls in Paradise who, after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, lack the character of that Sacrament?
A. Yes.
Pretty simple, yet missing. Trent could have said the same thing:
If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who, having ended their lives after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, nonetheless, lack the character of that Sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent defined 125 such anathemas and yet the above is nowhere to be found. Saint Augustine's opinion (see below) is still valid!
And yet the Catechism of St Pius X says:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Like I said, I guess the Pope didn't actually read the Catechism he gave approval to.
Or the one he approved did not have that answer in it.
-
SB13,
The Catechism of Saint Pius X was a Q&A catechism consisting of hundreds of such questions. Yet the following question is missing:
Q. Are there souls in Paradise who, after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, lack the character of that Sacrament?
A. Yes.
Pretty simple, yet missing. Trent could have said the same thing:
If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who, having ended their lives after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, nonetheless, lack the character of that Sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent defined 125 such anathemas and yet the above is nowhere to be found. Saint Augustine's opinion (see below) is still valid!
I have ordered 2 of the original catechisms from Pope Saint Pius X in the original Italian; a brief version from 1906, and the complete from 1912. We will settle this once and for all in a few days when the books arrive. I will take photos of the appropriate pages and post them here. We all know already what the answer is going to be....
-
SB13,
The Catechism of Saint Pius X was a Q&A catechism consisting of hundreds of such questions. Yet the following question is missing:
Q. Are there souls in Paradise who, after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, lack the character of that Sacrament?
A. Yes.
Pretty simple, yet missing. Trent could have said the same thing:
If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who, having ended their lives after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, nonetheless, lack the character of that Sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent defined 125 such anathemas and yet the above is nowhere to be found. Saint Augustine's opinion (see below) is still valid!
I have ordered 2 of the original catechisms from Pope Saint Pius X in the original Italian; a brief version from 1906, and the complete from 1912. We will settle this once and for all in a few days when the books arrive. I will take photos of the appropriate pages and post them here. We all know already what the answer is going to be....
Why not just use the original catechism from Trent? Seriously.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
-
With regard to the Catechism of Pius X - it is a bad translation that you are using, moreover, it was not written by Pius X.
By the way, here is the official letter from Pope Saint Pius X to Cardinal Pietro Respighi approving the Catechism of Christian Doctrine that he supposedly knew nothing about! The date of the letter is October 18, 1912.
Letter from Pope Saint Pius X in 1912 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/docuмents/hf_p-x_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html)
What does my saying that you have a bad translation have to do with what you posted? The original catechism was written in Italian.
There is not one Father, Saint, Doctor, of the Church that ever wrote in favor of salvation of the unbaptized by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, as it is used today. Pius X did not write the catechism, nor did he write your translation. (by the way, I should be saying that I have never heard in all of my years of any Father.... For it could be there is one, however, one does not mean anything)
When you think about it Bowler, now that we see the letter above from Pope Saint Pius X approving the Catechism Of Christian Doctrine (which was published with his name on the front cover), why bother arguing who wrote it? The letter shows he approved of it. End of story.
As for your desperate argument that I am using a bad translation of the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, you can very easily search the Internet for the original Italian version of The Catechism of Christian Doctrine (do a search for "Catechismo della dottrina Cristiana"), you can then do a search within that for "Battesimo di desiderio" (baptism of desire). Isn't it funny, but even all of the Italian versions of the catechism say the same exact thing as the English on baptism of desire! What a surprise! In performing the search over and over myself, 100% of the Italian copies of the catechism are the same as the English.
When you've cried "bad translation" in the past, you were asked for the correct translation, but no matter how many times you were asked, you never presented it. We all know why that is Bowler - because you're just throwing the argument out there to be obstinate.
I am talking about your belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Are you trying to say that a pope approving a LOCAL catechism means that a line it supercedes the Athanasian Creed and all of the Fathers, Saints and Doctors of the Church? Where are you going with this? what is your purpose? Do you even know?
-
SB13,
The Catechism of Saint Pius X was a Q&A catechism consisting of hundreds of such questions. Yet the following question is missing:
Q. Are there souls in Paradise who, after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, lack the character of that Sacrament?
A. Yes.
Pretty simple, yet missing. Trent could have said the same thing:
If anyone says that there are no souls in Paradise who, having ended their lives after the Law of Baptism became obligatory, nonetheless, lack the character of that Sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent defined 125 such anathemas and yet the above is nowhere to be found. Saint Augustine's opinion (see below) is still valid!
I have ordered 2 of the original catechisms from Pope Saint Pius X in the original Italian; a brief version from 1906, and the complete from 1912. We will settle this once and for all in a few days when the books arrive. I will take photos of the appropriate pages and post them here. We all know already what the answer is going to be....
Why not just use the original catechism from Trent? Seriously.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
Because over time catechisms got more and more detailed. It included more and more information. Just because a previous catechism doesn't include something doesn't mean it wasn't Church teaching. Although I question what's in the JPII catechism, you have to admit that it does a great job of providing a more comprehensive presentation of the Faith than any other catechism prior.
-
Why not just use the original catechism from Trent? Seriously.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
Because over time catechisms got more and more detailed. It included more and more information. Just because a previous catechism doesn't include something doesn't mean it wasn't Church teaching. Although I question what's in the JPII catechism, you have to admit that it does a great job of providing a more comprehensive presentation of the Faith than any other catechism prior.
Nothing wrong with expanding explanations but when they teach obvious errors, you'd think someone woulda put a stop to it before it got to the point of the latest CCC. Just shows the enemies were in position for a very long time before V2.
How's this for an obvious heresy in the latest CCC:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?
Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
HHmmmm, well how are we to understand it re-formulated negatively - or hows about not re-formulated at all?
-
Why not just use the original catechism from Trent? Seriously.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
The point here is that anytime the Catechism of Pope Pius X is referenced when supporting baptism of desire, the Feeneyites immediately cry, "bad translation". In other words the English translation found on the Internet is "supposedly" not the same as the original Italian published in 1912. This is going to put that argument to rest very quickly.
-
When you think about it Bowler, now that we see the letter above from Pope Saint Pius X approving the Catechism Of Christian Doctrine (which was published with his name on the front cover), why bother arguing who wrote it? The letter shows he approved of it. End of story.
As for your desperate argument that I am using a bad translation of the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, you can very easily search the Internet for the original Italian version of The Catechism of Christian Doctrine (do a search for "Catechismo della dottrina Cristiana"), you can then do a search within that for "Battesimo di desiderio" (baptism of desire). Isn't it funny, but even all of the Italian versions of the catechism say the same exact thing as the English on baptism of desire! What a surprise! In performing the search over and over myself, 100% of the Italian copies of the catechism are the same as the English.
When you've cried "bad translation" in the past, you were asked for the correct translation, but no matter how many times you were asked, you never presented it. We all know why that is Bowler - because you're just throwing the argument out there to be obstinate.
I am talking about your belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Are you trying to say that a pope approving a LOCAL catechism means that a line it supercedes the Athanasian Creed and all of the Fathers, Saints and Doctors of the Church? Where are you going with this? what is your purpose? Do you even know?
You've completely lost sight of the subject we are discussing. I said that the todays theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ does not have the support of any Father, Doctor, Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed. You posted the Pius X Catechism as if it is a quote from Pius X in favor of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Even if it supported salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, it is not a quote from a saint, and even if you find a quote from a saint, one quote does not supercede the Athanasian Creed. So, I ask again, what is your point?
Here is your very own quote that you posted:
Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism of Pius X, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Where do these quotes teach salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ? They are teaching St. Thomas's theory of implicit desire for baptism. I hope that you learned the difference by now, I've written it enough times about the differences. If you still do not understand private email Nishant, and maybe he being someone that you trust can teach you.
I won't go into the inconsistencies in this quote, that has been thoroughly discussed in other threads.
-
When you think about it Bowler, now that we see the letter above from Pope Saint Pius X approving the Catechism Of Christian Doctrine (which was published with his name on the front cover), why bother arguing who wrote it? The letter shows he approved of it. End of story.
As for your desperate argument that I am using a bad translation of the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, you can very easily search the Internet for the original Italian version of The Catechism of Christian Doctrine (do a search for "Catechismo della dottrina Cristiana"), you can then do a search within that for "Battesimo di desiderio" (baptism of desire). Isn't it funny, but even all of the Italian versions of the catechism say the same exact thing as the English on baptism of desire! What a surprise! In performing the search over and over myself, 100% of the Italian copies of the catechism are the same as the English.
When you've cried "bad translation" in the past, you were asked for the correct translation, but no matter how many times you were asked, you never presented it. We all know why that is Bowler - because you're just throwing the argument out there to be obstinate.
I am talking about your belief in salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Are you trying to say that a pope approving a LOCAL catechism means that a line it supercedes the Athanasian Creed and all of the Fathers, Saints and Doctors of the Church? Where are you going with this? what is your purpose? Do you even know?
You've completely lost sight of the subject we are discussing. I said that the todays theory of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ does not have the support of any Father, Doctor, Saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian Creed. You posted the Pius X Catechism as if it is a quote from Pius X in favor of salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ. Even if it supported salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ, it is not a quote from a saint, and even if you find a quote from a saint, one quote does not supercede the Athanasian Creed. So, I ask again, what is your point?
Here is your very own quote that you posted:
Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism of Pius X, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and 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
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Where do these quotes teach salvation by implicit faith in Jesus Christ? They are teaching St. Thomas's theory of implicit desire for baptism. I hope that you learned the difference by now, I've written it enough times about the differences. If you still do not understand private email Nishant, and maybe he being someone that you trust can teach you.
I won't go into the inconsistencies in this quote, that has been thoroughly discussed in other threads.
Wait, so you have been arguing all along that it isn't BOD you have an issue with, but some teaching called implicit FAITH?
I am completely and utterly confused now. Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about anymore.
-
Why not just use the original catechism from Trent? Seriously.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
Because over time catechisms got more and more detailed. It included more and more information. Just because a previous catechism doesn't include something doesn't mean it wasn't Church teaching. Although I question what's in the JPII catechism, you have to admit that it does a great job of providing a more comprehensive presentation of the Faith than any other catechism prior.
Nothing wrong with expanding explanations but when they teach obvious errors, you'd think someone woulda put a stop to it before it got to the point of the latest CCC. Just shows the enemies were in position for a very long time before V2.
How's this for an obvious heresy in the latest CCC:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?
Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
HHmmmm, well how are we to understand it re-formulated negatively - or hows about not re-formulated at all?
(1) We're not talking about JPII's Catechism here.
(2) You seem to be suggesting that despite the fact that the Pope himself approved "his" catechism, he allowed the error to remain.
Was Pope Pius X also a Modernist?
-
Why not just use the original catechism from Trent? Seriously.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
The point here is that anytime the Catechism of Pope Pius X is referenced when supporting baptism of desire, the Feeneyites immediately cry, "bad translation". In other words the English translation found on the Internet is "supposedly" not the same as the original Italian published in 1912. This is going to put that argument to rest very quickly.
What does it matter which translation is used? The catechisms are helpless books in the same sense as the Bible is a helpless book incapable of defending its self from prots. No further proof is needed that the error of BOD is in the catechisms than when they teach about there being more than one baptism - which directly contradicts Scripture, as well as the infallible teaching of Trent.
Error is error no matter where it is - and the catechism which came directly from Trent is the original catechism -which teaches that the desire for baptism is an absolute requirement before an adult receives the sacrament. Not, like the catechisms after it teach, that the desire without the sacrament saves in case of emergency - that is error and obviously so.
Comparing Trent's catechism's teaching to all the other catechisms teaching on the subject is like comparing the TLM to the NOM - they are both two completely different teachings wherein one of them is wrong. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand and BOD is against the necessity of being a living member within that kingdom for hope of salvation.
Simple as that.
-
(1) We're not talking about JPII's Catechism here.
(2) You seem to be suggesting that despite the fact that the Pope himself approved "his" catechism, he allowed the error to remain.
Was Pope Pius X also a Modernist?
The point is that catechisms - all catechisms - are not only capable of teaching error, the ones that teach a BOD do teach error, same as the newchurch catechism.
So what, so we cannot understand how the pope's endorsement appears to bless error - big deal, we do not need to know how that happened or how the error got there in the first place, what we do need to do, is to recognize that it is error - either that or the Scripture is error and the infallible declarations are error. Take your pick because it is impossible to make a BOD and the necessity of the sacrament for all to mean the same thing.
Again, there is no BODer who uses infallible declarations as they are written to support a BOD. When they do use infallible magisterial pronouncements, they do not read them as they are written which leads them to misinterpret and add their own exceptions to what they are quoting - all the while insisting they are doing no such thing.
Pretty crazy.
-
And yet the Catechism of St Pius X says:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Like I said, I guess the Pope didn't actually read the Catechism he gave approval to.
I agree with the above. Still, it does not answer the question, "Are their souls in Paradise who, since the Day of Pentecost, lack the character of sacramental Baptism?"
-
(1) We're not talking about JPII's Catechism here.
(2) You seem to be suggesting that despite the fact that the Pope himself approved "his" catechism, he allowed the error to remain.
Was Pope Pius X also a Modernist?
The point is that catechisms - all catechisms - are not only capable of teaching error, the ones that teach a BOD do teach error, same as the newchurch catechism.
So what, so we cannot understand how the pope's endorsement appears to bless error - big deal, we do not need to know how that happened or how the error got there in the first place, what we do need to do, is to recognize that it is error - either that or the Scripture is error and the infallible declarations are error. Take your pick because it is impossible to make a BOD and the necessity of the sacrament for all to mean the same thing.
Again, there is no BODer who uses infallible declarations as they are written to support a BOD. When they do use infallible magisterial pronouncements, they do not read them as they are written which leads them to misinterpret and add their own exceptions to what they are quoting - all the while insisting they are doing no such thing.
Pretty crazy.
A.D. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW said:
On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”
-
And yet the Catechism of St Pius X says:
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Like I said, I guess the Pope didn't actually read the Catechism he gave approval to.
I agree with the above. Still, it does not answer the question, "Are their souls in Paradise who, since the Day of Pentecost, lack the character of sacramental Baptism?"
[/b]
Good question, I think the reason no one answers it, is because no one knows.
-
A.D. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW said:
On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”
For 1916 years the law was neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism. So if you are implying that the Church has approved BOD for the catechumen by the code of 1917, I can say the opposite with my quote (laws), for 1916 years is tradition, while from the year 1917 till today is change and novelty.
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia-1907)
-
A.D. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW said:
On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”
For 1916 years the law was neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism. So if you are implying that the Church has approved BOD for the catechumen by the code of 1917, I can say the opposite with my quote (laws), for 1916 years is tradition, while from the year 1917 till today is change and novelty.
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia-1907)
How many times has this been pointed out to you?
-
As many times as you continue to post your errors over and over.
-
They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.
The CMRI only lists two such martyrs:
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_quotes.shtml
Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized? Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?
In any case, we're into trying to "prove negatives," again. Even in the case of Emperor Valentinian, we could assert, if only as a possibility, that he was, in fact, sacramentally baptized prior to his death and that Saint Ambrose was simply ignorant of that fact.
Wouldn't ONE be enough?
-
CMRI recognizes many, but listing two makes their point.
-
As many times as you continue to post your errors over and over.
Where is my error concerning this point? You can't have your cake and eat it too, if the code of 1917 means the Church accepts BOD of the catechumen, then the 1916 years of not allowing commemorations for catechumens means the Church rejected BOD.
-
11. The teaching on "Soul of the Church" is a heresy.
The definition of "Soul of the Church" in the "New Catholic Dictionary" (1929) provides an explanation for the origins of this term:
Soul of the Church: "From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians."
The above explanation is not entirely correct as can be seen below from out of Bellarmine's mouth himself:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jul/jul17ftt.htm
Anybody who wants to see where the confusion on the Church's own understanding of "No Salvation Outside the Church" originated MUST read the above article in its entirety [The entire part written by Fenton where who presents and explains the teaching of Bellarmine and the errors from an imperfect and improper understanding of that teaching.]
Non-members can partake of the inner bonds of unity of the Church and be saved within the Church but NOT as members of that Church. If only the people who really care about the issue would read the above link in its entirety.
-
CMRI recognizes many, but listing two makes their point.
The Roman Martyrology has undergone its own extensive revisions throughout the centuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Martyrology
-
As many times as you continue to post your errors over and over.
Where is my error concerning this point? You can't have your cake and eat it too, if the code of 1917 means the Church accepts BOD of the catechumen, then the 1916 years of not allowing commemorations for catechumens means the Church rejected BOD.
As long as you keep denying truth and spewing venom against the Church expect to see repeated quotes over and over that deny all your falsehoods.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they die in a state of grace and righteousness they will go to Heaven.
So the Fathers of Trent were very careful to mention the Baptism of Desire.
Pope Saint Pius V scrutinized the Catechism of the Council of Trent, before it was approved.
The quote about Baptism is from the most accurate translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy. It is still available today.
You can also read the Catechism of the Council of Trent here:
http://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n0/mode/2up
In this edition, the relevant quote is p.124-125. Click the buttons at the foot of the screen to turn the pages.
The Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Catholic Church.
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc.
(Most of the following quotes are taken from the excellent CMRI website):
-
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
But this doesn't support BOD....for some posters here.
-
I have ordered 2 of the original catechisms from Pope Saint Pius X in the original Italian; a brief version from 1906, and the complete from 1912. We will settle this once and for all in a few days when the books arrive. I will take photos of the appropriate pages and post them here. We all know already what the answer is going to be....
Looking forwards to this. Hope it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.
Post it to another thread of its own?
-
As many times as you continue to post your errors over and over.
Where is my error concerning this point? You can't have your cake and eat it too, if the code of 1917 means the Church accepts BOD of the catechumen, then the 1916 years of not allowing commemorations for catechumens means the Church rejected BOD.
As long as you keep denying truth and spewing venom against the Church expect to see repeated quotes over and over that deny all your falsehoods.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they die in a state of grace and righteousness they will go to Heaven.
So the Fathers of Trent were very careful to mention the Baptism of Desire.
Pope Saint Pius V scrutinized the Catechism of the Council of Trent, before it was approved.
The quote about Baptism is from the most accurate translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy. It is still available today.
You can also read the Catechism of the Council of Trent here:
http://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n0/mode/2up
In this edition, the relevant quote is p.124-125. Click the buttons at the foot of the screen to turn the pages.
The Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Catholic Church.
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc.
(Most of the following quotes are taken from the excellent CMRI website):
You are in denial, stinking your head in the sand. Trent defined anything about what happens to a person who dies after being pre-justified but before being baptized. That is why you have to mix things up above to come up with an answer.
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.
Now, it is curious how BODers explain away this clear infallible dogmatic decree (from the Holy Ghost) and all of the others like it, yet they insist on their interpretation of the few same unclear fallible docuмents that they bring up over and over, because they have such little evidence, like one line from Pius IX "invincible ignorance", and one quote from the Catechism of Pius X line. Meanwhile they deny the clear meaning of all the infallible dogmas on EENS, the infallible Athanasian Creed, God's revelation in John 3:5, which the Fathers and all Catholics understood literally etc.
-
As many times as you continue to post your errors over and over.
Where is my error concerning this point? You can't have your cake and eat it too, if the code of 1917 means the Church accepts BOD of the catechumen, then the 1916 years of not allowing commemorations for catechumens means the Church rejected BOD.
As long as you keep denying truth and spewing venom against the Church expect to see repeated quotes over and over that deny all your falsehoods.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they die in a state of grace and righteousness they will go to Heaven.
So the Fathers of Trent were very careful to mention the Baptism of Desire.
Pope Saint Pius V scrutinized the Catechism of the Council of Trent, before it was approved.
The quote about Baptism is from the most accurate translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy. It is still available today.
You can also read the Catechism of the Council of Trent here:
http://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n0/mode/2up
In this edition, the relevant quote is p.124-125. Click the buttons at the foot of the screen to turn the pages.
The Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Catholic Church.
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc.
(Most of the following quotes are taken from the excellent CMRI website):
You are in denial, stinking your head in the sand. Trent defined anything about what happens to a person who dies after being pre-justified but before being baptized. That is why you have to mix things up above to come up with an answer.
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.
Now, it is curious how BODers explain away this clear infallible dogmatic decree (from the Holy Ghost) and all of the others like it, yet they insist on their interpretation of the few same unclear fallible docuмents that they bring up over and over, because they have such little evidence, like one line from Pius IX "invincible ignorance", and one quote from the Catechism of Pius X line. Meanwhile they deny the clear meaning of all the infallible dogmas on EENS, the infallible Athanasian Creed, God's revelation in John 3:5, which the Fathers and all Catholics understood literally etc.
What's curious to me is how certain Catholics use the Council of Trent Catechism much like Sola Scriptura Protestants use the Bible.
-
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
But this doesn't support BOD....for some posters here.
Right. People believe what they want to believe. The truth is irrelevant to them.
-
(http://[URL=http://s270.photobucket.com/user/Myrnanne/media/BODexplained.jpg.html][IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj108/Myrnanne/BODexplained.jpg)[/URL][/img]
-
You are in denial, stinking your head in the sand. Trent defined anything about what happens to a person who dies after being pre-justified but before being baptized. That is why you have to mix things up above to come up with an answer.
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.
Now, it is curious how BODers explain away this clear infallible dogmatic decree (from the Holy Ghost) and all of the others like it, yet they insist on their interpretation of the few same unclear fallible docuмents that they bring up over and over, because they have such little evidence, like one line from Pius IX "invincible ignorance", and one quote from the Catechism of Pius X line. Meanwhile they deny the clear meaning of all the infallible dogmas on EENS, the infallible Athanasian Creed, God's revelation in John 3:5, which the Fathers and all Catholics understood literally etc.
Well, the Holy See, these two Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia say that the Council of Trent taught baptism of desire. I think I will trust their judgment over Bowler the self interpreter.
St. Robert Bellarmine: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: "Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "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 of 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.'"
Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism: The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).
Letter of the Holy Office, 1949: "This (Sacraments through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807)
-
Bowler,
You lost. The Catholic Church wins. I hope you step over to the winning side before it is too late.
Nice posts Myrna and Saint John Bosco!
May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John
-
You seem to be suggesting that despite the fact that the Pope himself approved "his" catechism, he allowed the error to remain. Was Pope Pius X also a Modernist?
The point is that catechisms - all catechisms - are not only capable of teaching error, the ones that teach a BOD do teach error, same as the newchurch catechism.
So what, so we cannot understand how the pope's endorsement appears to bless error - big deal, we do not need to know how that happened or how the error got there in the first place, what we do need to do, is to recognize that it is error - either that or the Scripture is error and the infallible declarations are error. Take your pick because it is impossible to make a BOD and the necessity of the sacrament for all to mean the same thing.
Again, there is no BODer who uses infallible declarations as they are written to support a BOD. When they do use infallible magisterial pronouncements, they do not read them as they are written which leads them to misinterpret and add their own exceptions to what they are quoting - all the while insisting they are doing no such thing.
What an absolutely absurd response. Holy smokes. If a catechism, let's say the Baltimore catechism, contained error after it was published, the error would be quickly corrected. We are talking about a divinely guided Church here, guided by the Holy Ghost against error. Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore catechism as the standard for all schools in the United States, and this catechism had a teaching of baptism of desire in it. The Holy Ghost, to maintain infallibility, would prevent this Pope from doing so if it were error. And subsequent popes would certainly not sit quiet while every school in the US was using a heretical catechism! You have no concept of what infallibility is when you say that a pope can "bless error". Such a statement is not even Catholic.
Then you actually have the nerve to state that "all we need to do is recognize that it is error", as though it is the job of lay Catholics to do so! The job of declaring error is through the solemn teaching of the Church alone. Go look at a summary of the 20 General Councils and how they corrected errors throughout the history of the Church, with the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost. Martin Luther declared errors on his own and look what happened.
-
You seem to be suggesting that despite the fact that the Pope himself approved "his" catechism, he allowed the error to remain. Was Pope Pius X also a Modernist?
The point is that catechisms - all catechisms - are not only capable of teaching error, the ones that teach a BOD do teach error, same as the newchurch catechism.
So what, so we cannot understand how the pope's endorsement appears to bless error - big deal, we do not need to know how that happened or how the error got there in the first place, what we do need to do, is to recognize that it is error - either that or the Scripture is error and the infallible declarations are error. Take your pick because it is impossible to make a BOD and the necessity of the sacrament for all to mean the same thing.
Again, there is no BODer who uses infallible declarations as they are written to support a BOD. When they do use infallible magisterial pronouncements, they do not read them as they are written which leads them to misinterpret and add their own exceptions to what they are quoting - all the while insisting they are doing no such thing.
What an absolutely absurd response. Holy smokes. If a catechism, let's say the Baltimore catechism, contained error after it was published, the error would be quickly corrected. We are talking about a divinely guided Church here, guided by the Holy Ghost against error. Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore catechism as the standard for all schools in the United States, and this catechism had a teaching of baptism of desire in it. The Holy Ghost, to maintain infallibility, would prevent this Pope from doing so if it were error. And subsequent popes would certainly not sit quiet while every school in the US was using a heretical catechism! You have no concept of what infallibility is when you say that a pope can "bless error". Such a statement is not even Catholic.
Then you actually have the nerve to state that "all we need to do is recognize that it is error", as though it is the job of lay Catholics to do so! The job of declaring error is through the solemn teaching of the Church alone. Go look at a summary of the 20 General Councils and how they corrected errors throughout the history of the Church, with the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost. Martin Luther declared errors on his own and look what happened.
Yeah, I keep coming back to this regardless of all the posts that seem to back the bowler/stubborn POV. Hundreds of years of children being taught error and the Church did nothing about it.
Yeah, no.
-
You seem to be suggesting that despite the fact that the Pope himself approved "his" catechism, he allowed the error to remain. Was Pope Pius X also a Modernist?
The point is that catechisms - all catechisms - are not only capable of teaching error, the ones that teach a BOD do teach error, same as the newchurch catechism.
So what, so we cannot understand how the pope's endorsement appears to bless error - big deal, we do not need to know how that happened or how the error got there in the first place, what we do need to do, is to recognize that it is error - either that or the Scripture is error and the infallible declarations are error. Take your pick because it is impossible to make a BOD and the necessity of the sacrament for all to mean the same thing.
Again, there is no BODer who uses infallible declarations as they are written to support a BOD. When they do use infallible magisterial pronouncements, they do not read them as they are written which leads them to misinterpret and add their own exceptions to what they are quoting - all the while insisting they are doing no such thing.
What an absolutely absurd response. Holy smokes. If a catechism, let's say the Baltimore catechism, contained error after it was published, the error would be quickly corrected. We are talking about a divinely guided Church here, guided by the Holy Ghost against error. Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore catechism as the standard for all schools in the United States, and this catechism had a teaching of baptism of desire in it. The Holy Ghost, to maintain infallibility, would prevent this Pope from doing so if it were error. And subsequent popes would certainly not sit quiet while every school in the US was using a heretical catechism! You have no concept of what infallibility is when you say that a pope can "bless error". Such a statement is not even Catholic.
Then you actually have the nerve to state that "all we need to do is recognize that it is error", as though it is the job of lay Catholics to do so! The job of declaring error is through the solemn teaching of the Church alone. Go look at a summary of the 20 General Councils and how they corrected errors throughout the history of the Church, with the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost. Martin Luther declared errors on his own and look what happened.
Then you should have no problem accepting the CCC. It is, after all, a catechism.
If you are going to use a catechism in this day and age, use the original catechism approved by Pope St. Pius V - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
This is the one all other catechisms should be compared to so you will recognize error when you see it. As it is, you do not recognize error when you see it because you've been reading books that teach error.
Trent's original catechism also is very clear when it teaches about the necessity for the desire for baptism and has a very clear teaching on perfect contrition - - - - which, according to this catechism - which btw, clearly explains the canons of it's own Council, all the other popular catechisms teach error.
They cannot both be right when their teachings oppose each other when it comes to a BOD and perfect contrition.
-
Eh, NewCatechism is the catechism of NewChurch.
Pope Pius X (and popes before him) vs. JPII.
Apples and oranges.
-
Then you should have no problem accepting the CCC. It is, after all, a catechism.
If you are going to use a catechism in this day and age, use the original catechism approved by Pope St. Pius V - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
This is the one all other catechisms should be compared to so you will recognize error when you see it. As it is, you do not recognize error when you see it because you've been reading books that teach error.
Trent's original catechism also is very clear when it teaches about the necessity for the desire for baptism and has a very clear teaching on perfect contrition - - - - which, according to this catechism - which btw, clearly explains the canons of it's own Council, all the other popular catechisms teach error.
They cannot both be right when their teachings oppose each other when it comes to a BOD and perfect contrition.
None of the pre-V2 catechism's conflict or contradict one another. If you feel they do, then you should methodically and in detail prove so. Just saying they do means nothing.
-
You are in denial, stinking your head in the sand. Trent defined anything about what happens to a person who dies after being pre-justified but before being baptized. That is why you have to mix things up above to come up with an answer.
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.
Now, it is curious how BODers explain away this clear infallible dogmatic decree (from the Holy Ghost) and all of the others like it, yet they insist on their interpretation of the few same unclear fallible docuмents that they bring up over and over, because they have such little evidence, like one line from Pius IX "invincible ignorance", and one quote from the Catechism of Pius X line. Meanwhile they deny the clear meaning of all the infallible dogmas on EENS, the infallible Athanasian Creed, God's revelation in John 3:5, which the Fathers and all Catholics understood literally etc.
Well, the Holy See, these two Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia say that the Council of Trent taught baptism of desire. I think I will trust their judgment over Bowler the self interpreter.
St. Robert Bellarmine: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: "Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de ####o non baptizato" and of 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.'"
Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism: The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).
Letter of the Holy Office, 1949: "This (Sacraments through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807)
Trent Session 6, Chapter 4 is talking about justification, and it says nothing about what happens to a person who dies justified before he gets baptized.
Besides St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Ligouri are saying that Trent teaches that explicit desire to be baptized, can replace the sacrament, HOWEVER, you believe that no explicit desire for baptism, nor desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Christ are necessary for salvation. So why are you bringing up these quotes, when they have nothing to do with what you believe?
Actually I have more affinity with St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Ligouri than you do, since my disagreement with them only involves a catechumen or someone like a catechumen, who explicitly desires to be baptized, or a Catholic. A trivial disagreement which involves numerically speaking practically no one. And who am I to tell someone that their family member who was a catechumen is in hell?
Yet you believe that anyone can be saved not just someone who explicitly desires to be a Catholic and baptized. You have lost the faith or your marbles.
-
Bowler,
You lost. The Catholic Church wins. I hope you step over to the winning side before it is too late.
Nice posts Myrna and Saint John Bosco!
May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John
OK, you convinced me, I now believe as you do, that all the Fathers of the Church were wrong in believing John 3:5 literally, and now I believe as you that The Council of Florence was wrong in teaching that no non-Catholic can be saved even if the shed their blood for Christ. I now believe as you do that any unbaptized person of any religion can be saved without shedding even an eyelash for Christ, nor believing in anything Catholic.
-
Yeah, I keep coming back to this regardless of all the posts that seem to back the bowler/stubborn POV. Hundreds of years of children being taught error and the Church did nothing about it.
Yeah, no.
Are you a sedevacantes?
What you may not see, is that all these BODers believe that any non-baptized person can be saved, even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholic or baptized. That goes against ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, EENS as it is written, Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, the Douay Rheims catechism, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which allows funeral rites fonly or catechumens. In other words it goes against every source that the BODers bring up to defend BOD of the catechumen. Yet, you are now saying that you believe in salvation for those who have no explicit desire to be Catholics?
-
None of the pre-V2 catechism's conflict or contradict one another. If you feel they do, then you should methodically and in detail prove so. Just saying they do means nothing.
I have laid it out here before you in as clear a manner as this format allows. As you can plainly see, ALL the pre-V2 catechisms disagree with Trent's. Note that the other pre-V2 catechisms do agree with the post V2 catechism - should tell you somethin'.
Now if you still deny the obvious adulteration in teaching between what Trent defined and explains in it's own catechism that one must have the proper disposition and actually "desire" to be baptized prior to the actual reception of the sacrament, vs how a desire certainly takes the place of the sacrament in the other catechisms, then study till you can see it.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html)
Dispositions for baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Necessity Of Confession [Doctrine on Perfect Contrition]
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
HOW "OR THE DESIRE THEREOF" AS DECLARED AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND EXPLAINED IN IT'S CATECHISM WAS ADULTERATED INTO AND PROMULGATED AS A "BAPTISM OF DESIRE"
NOTE: Notice how easily attainable and unquestionably reliable for everyone the catechisms after Trent make Perfect Contrition out to be.
Catechism of St Pius X (1908):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries):
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.
"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Myrna'M's book on a BOD
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.
CCC
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
-
None of the pre-V2 catechism's conflict or contradict one another. If you feel they do, then you should methodically and in detail prove so. Just saying they do means nothing.
I have laid it out here before you in as clear a manner as this format allows. As you can plainly see, ALL the pre-V2 catechisms disagree with Trent's. Note that the other pre-V2 catechisms do agree with the post V2 catechism - should tell you somethin'.
Now if you still deny the obvious adulteration in teaching between what Trent defined and explains in it's own catechism that one must have the proper disposition and actually "desire" to be baptized prior to the actual reception of the sacrament, vs how a desire certainly takes the place of the sacrament in the other catechisms, then study till you can see it.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html)
Dispositions for baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Necessity Of Confession [Doctrine on Perfect Contrition]
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
HOW "OR THE DESIRE THEREOF" AS DECLARED AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND EXPLAINED IN IT'S CATECHISM WAS ADULTERATED INTO AND PROMULGATED AS A "BAPTISM OF DESIRE"
NOTE: Notice how easily attainable and unquestionably reliable for everyone the catechisms after Trent make Perfect Contrition out to be.
Catechism of St Pius X (1908):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries):
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.
"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Myrna'M's book on a BOD
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.
CCC
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
Stubborn,
So you're trying to say the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and the Baltimore catechism, among others, suddenly started teaching a newly "morphed" doctrine on baptism of desire. If that's the case, then why does St. Thomas Aquinas teach baptism of desire in the 13th century (2 centuries before the Council of Trent) in exactly the same way as Pius X and Baltimore catechisms? There are other teachings on baptism of desire before the Council of Trent as well.
Summa Theologica, Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
“Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.”
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
-
SB13,
This is what the Baltimore Catechism states on Baptism of Desire:
Q. 174. Can God do all things?
A. God can do all things, and nothing is hard or impossible to Him.
Q. 175. When is a thing said to be "impossible"?
A. A thing is said to be "impossible" when it cannot be done. Many things that are impossible for creatures are possible for God.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Is it possible that each and every one of the One and Triune God's Elect will, without any exceptions whatsoever, receive Baptism of Water?
-
Stubborn,
So you're trying to say the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and the Baltimore catechism, among others, suddenly started teaching a newly "morphed" doctrine on baptism of desire.
Read the post yourself, that is why I posted it as you asked me to. It is right there, big as life. You cannot say the new catechisms didn't morph, because they did - what you find hard to swallow is "who could've done it?" and "why would they do it?" and "how did they get away with it?" - and you allow *that* to blind you to what is right in front of your eyes - as if because you cannot fathom the "who, why and how" that somehow the "morphing" (error) that you plainly you see, is not error.
If that's the case, then why does St. Thomas Aquinas teach baptism of desire in the 13th century (2 centuries before the Council of Trent) in exactly the same way as Pius X and Baltimore catechisms? There are other teachings on baptism of desire before the Council of Trent as well.
You are making the great saint(s) out to be something he simply is not. Do you think the Council of Trent is powerless over St. Thomas Aquinas - or is it the other way around? For all that the Angelic Doctor was, neither he nor any other saint or theologian was ever promised to be free from the possibility of error.
Trent certainly knew what St. Thomas taught on the matter, so answer your own question........ "why does St. Thomas Aquinas teach baptism of desire in the 13th century" - but Trent did not?
"There are other teachings on baptism of desire before the Council of Trent as well." Well 200 years later, the infallible teachings of the Council of Trent and it's catechism contradicted past teachings - when they did this, they set the teaching straight - this is merely Trent is doing their duty in using their full power and authority by clarifying and infallibly correcting the error. That is what Councils are supposed to do. That is their very purpose.
Consider that for more than 2 centuries the Church heard the arguments on both sides of the issue, Her theologians and learned fathers debated the issue for centuries till all arguments on the matter were exhausted 100 times over - after all the dust settles and all the different points have been made and weighed by the Church - *then* Holy Mother steps in to infallibly settle the matter for all time - that is the way the Church works, that is what Trent did. There are no infallible teachings - far as I know - that happened asap, they always take a long time before they actually come out and infallibly teach, even centuries.
And here we are today some 450 years after the Council and the error that was taught before the Council has returned - this time, thanks in no small part to catechisms.
And, once again, it looks like the only hope for those who have this error firmly embedded in them will be when this matter will be settled again infallibly through a pope or a council.
Perhaps you've heard that the EENS dogma has been referred to as the "Thrice defined dogma" - well, if error would have stopped creeping back in, there would have been no need to ever repeat the dogma three times - defining it one time would have been sufficient - the adulteration of Trent's teaching on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism is no different, and some future pope or Council will absolutely have to settle the matter again absolutely and repeat what has already been defined yet again - if this world lasts that long.
-
If that's the case, then why does St. Thomas Aquinas teach baptism of desire in the 13th century (2 centuries before the Council of Trent) in exactly the same way as Pius X and Baltimore catechisms? There are other teachings on baptism of desire before the Council of Trent as well.
"There are other teachings on baptism of desire before the Council of Trent as well." Well 200 years later, the infallible teachings of the Council of Trent and it's catechism contradicted past teachings - when they did this, they set the teaching straight - this is merely Trent is doing their duty in using their full power and authority by clarifying and infallibly correcting the error. That is what Councils are supposed to do. That is their very purpose.
Consider that for more than 2 centuries the Church heard the arguments on both sides of the issue, Her theologians and learned fathers debated the issue for centuries till all arguments on the matter were exhausted 100 times over - after all the dust settles and all the different points have been made and weighed by the Church - *then* Holy Mother steps in to infallibly settle the matter for all time - that is the way the Church works, that is what Trent did. There are no infallible teachings - far as I know - that happened asap, they always take a long time before they actually come out and infallibly teach, even centuries.
Never have we seen the Church act in the way you describe. In the history of General Councils of the Church, when something was condemned, it was condemned by name, along with those who taught it. For example, Arianism was condemned at Nicaea, along with Arius, who started it. The following Council condemned Macedonius, and the following, Nestorius and his teachings, etc. All subsequent Councils worked in the same way.
Now you are trying to say the Council of Trent needed to correct this previously taught "error" on the threefold baptism, and it uncharacteristically did not condemn the doctrine by name, or condemn those who taught it, by name? Why not? Why didn't this Council specifically mention St. Pope Siricius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III - three Popes who taught baptism of desire prior to the Council? And why didn't the Council mention the Church Fathers/Doctors of the Church, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. John Chrystostome, St. Basil, Eusebius of Caesarea, Rufinus, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damascus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Catherine of Sienna, for previously teaching the doctrine? In a nutshell, why did the Council of Trent, uncharacteristically as compared to all prior Councils, not mention anything in condemnation of the threefold baptism??? The answer is clear; the Council of Trent was not condemning anything or anyone in this regard. We all know the purpose the Council of Trent was called was to combat Protestantism - the threefold baptism was not even on the agenda.
-
Stubborn, could you please in your notes here, if you insert this again:
Myrna'M's book on a BOD
I would appreciate it if you would change it to MyrnaM's scan from a catechism book, otherwise someone might think I wrote a book about BOD.
With all the different replies here, I think we all wrote one, but nevertheless I would not want someone to be mislead.
-
Never have we seen the Church act in the way you describe. In the history of General Councils of the Church, when something was condemned, it was condemned by name, along with those who taught it. For example, Arianism was condemned at Nicaea, along with Arius, who started it. The following Council condemned Macedonius, and the following, Nestorius and his teachings, etc. All subsequent Councils worked in the same way.
Now you are trying to say the Council of Trent needed to correct this previously taught "error" on the threefold baptism, and it uncharacteristically did not condemn the doctrine by name, or condemn those who taught it, by name? Why not? Why didn't this Council specifically mention St. Pope Siricius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III - three Popes who taught baptism of desire prior to the Council? And why didn't the Council mention the Church Fathers/Doctors of the Church, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. John Chrystostome, St. Basil, Eusebius of Caesarea, Rufinus, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damascus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Catherine of Sienna, for previously teaching the doctrine? In a nutshell, why did the Council of Trent, uncharacteristically as compared to all prior Councils, not mention anything in condemnation of the threefold baptism??? The answer is clear; the Council of Trent was not condemning anything or anyone in this regard. We all know the purpose the Council of Trent was called was to combat Protestantism - the threefold baptism was not even on the agenda.
I posted what Trent taught, it's explanation from it's catechism, then the errors in the other catechisms for you as you asked. It is all laid out there and it is plain to see how the latter teachings are irreconcilable with the infallible teachings of the Council of Trent.
You do not believe what you see for all the wrong reasons.
The Council teaches: ....this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water...
It's catechism teaches that adults must desire the sacrament before they receive it.
The other catechisms teach a desire - even an ardent wish is a substitute for the sacrament - and "even though the person never heard of the existence of the sacrament" according to MyrnaM's scan from an old catechism book.
Certainly it is plain to see how far from the truth of Trent all the other catechisms are. Whether you choose to accept or reject what is right in front of you or not is entirely up to you.
Like a marriage is no marriage in a "shotgun" wedding where one of the parties is forced into the marriage, it works the same way with the sacrament of baptism which is why Trent's catechism explains: ....that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none.
No, Trent did not explicitly condemn a BOD for reasons known only to God - that is not even important - not in the slightest.
If it were important and we were forced to guess why there was no explicit condemnation, in my opinion, my guess would be because had they done so, that may have caused doubt about the saints themselves who taught it and it might have caused people to tend toward no one believing *all* the saint's other teachings which had no error. Again, there is no way to know and it is not important - better to concentrate on what was actually taught and focus your efforts to understanding that.
Either way, just because Trent did not explicitly condemn a BOD does not in any way change what Trent did explicitly teach.
-
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 of 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".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html
-
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
This teaching of St. Alphonsus is irreconcilable with the teaching from Trent as has already been proven.
Which one do you believe has it right, Trent or St. Alphonsus?
-
I believe what the Church teaches, what do you believe?
-
I believe what the Church teaches, what do you believe?
If you do, then what was your reason for posting a teaching from St. Alphonsus about a BOD as though that is what the Church teaches?
-
Never have we seen the Church act in the way you describe. In the history of General Councils of the Church, when something was condemned, it was condemned by name, along with those who taught it. For example, Arianism was condemned at Nicaea, along with Arius, who started it. The following Council condemned Macedonius, and the following, Nestorius and his teachings, etc. All subsequent Councils worked in the same way.
Now you are trying to say the Council of Trent needed to correct this previously taught "error" on the threefold baptism, and it uncharacteristically did not condemn the doctrine by name, or condemn those who taught it, by name? Why not? Why didn't this Council specifically mention St. Pope Siricius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III - three Popes who taught baptism of desire prior to the Council? And why didn't the Council mention the Church Fathers/Doctors of the Church, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. John Chrystostome, St. Basil, Eusebius of Caesarea, Rufinus, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damascus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Catherine of Sienna, for previously teaching the doctrine? In a nutshell, why did the Council of Trent, uncharacteristically as compared to all prior Councils, not mention anything in condemnation of the threefold baptism??? The answer is clear; the Council of Trent was not condemning anything or anyone in this regard. We all know the purpose the Council of Trent was called was to combat Protestantism - the threefold baptism was not even on the agenda.
No, Trent did not explicitly condemn a BOD for reasons known only to God - that is not even important - not in the slightest.
If it were important and we were forced to guess why there was no explicit condemnation, in my opinion, my guess would be because had they done so, that may have caused doubt about the saints themselves who taught it and it might have caused people to tend toward no one believing *all* the saint's other teachings which had no error. Again, there is no way to know and it is not important - better to concentrate on what was actually taught and focus your efforts to understanding that.
The absurdity of your answers are beyond words. You are claiming that all of the Saints that taught Baptism of desire were wrong (centuries of them), thereby filling the Church with error, and the Church not only did nothing about it, but went ahead and canonized all these Saints at the same time! Holy smokes Stubborn! The Church canonized Saints over and over again that were supposedly in error, without saying that they were???? You've completely lost the plot.
This claim that they were all wrong and that the Church did nothing about it is also a complete denial of the dogma of infallibility. The Church, the "pillar of truth", guided by the Holy Ghost from error, has been reduced to an erroneous group of men in your eyes. You've lost the faith.
If a Saint were wrong on any particular doctrine, the Church would need only say what the Saint was wrong about, and confirm that his other teachings were not affected. The Church is not shy, and has never held back in stating what is error and what is not. Now you come along to set the record straight? No one is going to believe that for a second.
-
Never have we seen the Church act in the way you describe. In the history of General Councils of the Church, when something was condemned, it was condemned by name, along with those who taught it. For example, Arianism was condemned at Nicaea, along with Arius, who started it. The following Council condemned Macedonius, and the following, Nestorius and his teachings, etc. All subsequent Councils worked in the same way.
Now you are trying to say the Council of Trent needed to correct this previously taught "error" on the threefold baptism, and it uncharacteristically did not condemn the doctrine by name, or condemn those who taught it, by name? Why not? Why didn't this Council specifically mention St. Pope Siricius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III - three Popes who taught baptism of desire prior to the Council? And why didn't the Council mention the Church Fathers/Doctors of the Church, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. John Chrystostome, St. Basil, Eusebius of Caesarea, Rufinus, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. John of Damascus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Catherine of Sienna, for previously teaching the doctrine? In a nutshell, why did the Council of Trent, uncharacteristically as compared to all prior Councils, not mention anything in condemnation of the threefold baptism??? The answer is clear; the Council of Trent was not condemning anything or anyone in this regard. We all know the purpose the Council of Trent was called was to combat Protestantism - the threefold baptism was not even on the agenda.
No, Trent did not explicitly condemn a BOD for reasons known only to God - that is not even important - not in the slightest.
If it were important and we were forced to guess why there was no explicit condemnation, in my opinion, my guess would be because had they done so, that may have caused doubt about the saints themselves who taught it and it might have caused people to tend toward no one believing *all* the saint's other teachings which had no error. Again, there is no way to know and it is not important - better to concentrate on what was actually taught and focus your efforts to understanding that.
The absurdity of your answers are beyond words. You are claiming that all of the Saints that taught Baptism of desire were wrong (centuries of them), thereby filling the Church with error, and the Church not only did nothing about it, but went ahead and canonized all these Saints at the same time! Holy smokes Stubborn! The Church canonized Saints over and over again that were supposedly in error, without saying that they were???? You've completely lost the plot.
This claim that they were all wrong and that the Church did nothing about it is also a complete denial of the dogma of infallibility. The Church, the "pillar of truth", guided by the Holy Ghost from error, has been reduced to an erroneous group of men in your eyes. You've lost the faith.
If a Saint were wrong on any particular doctrine, the Church would need only say what the Saint was wrong about, and confirm that his other teachings were not affected. The Church is not shy, and has never held back in stating what is error and what is not. Now you come along to set the record straight? No one is going to believe that for a second.
Good heavens, you asked and you received that which you asked for and you see with your own two eyes the progression of error, yet you do not believe.
This applies here:
Among the discourses of Christ we find the following refrain: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mt. 11:15, 13:9, 43). Jesus was aware that in the crowds He addressed were some who would be saved. They would be saved because they would find faith in Him by the power of the Spirit, through Whom they would recognize the divine truth which He spoke. Moreover, again by the power of the Spirit within them, these would respond to the truth which they recognized with the assent of faith and the grasping of joyful love. Others who listened to Christ heard exactly the same words, but did not have the "ears with
which to hear;" that is, they would not accept the grace to believe the truth which Christ expounded; for these latter, it had neither comprehensibleness nor urgency nor appeal. It might be better to say its meaning was both comprehended and its demand recognized. The reason Christ's words were not accepted by most of His hearers was that they were unwilling to submit to its demands.
-
I believe what the Church teaches, what do you believe?
If you do, then what was your reason for posting a teaching from St. Alphonsus about a BOD as though that is what the Church teaches?
With such a statement Stubborn, I have to ask you in all seriousness, are you even a Catholic? Now the almighty Stubborn has declared yet another Doctor of the Church to be a heretic. Amazing.
-
I believe what the Church teaches, what do you believe?
If you do, then what was your reason for posting a teaching from St. Alphonsus about a BOD as though that is what the Church teaches?
With such a statement Stubborn, I have to ask you in all seriousness, are you even a Catholic? Now the almighty Stubborn has declared yet another Doctor of the Church to be a heretic. Amazing.
Was that really necessary?
One of your many problems is that you actually think St. Alphonsus is the Church and Trent is not. Same goes for most if not all BODers.
-
SB13,
This is what the Baltimore Catechism states on Baptism of Desire:
Q. 174. Can God do all things?
A. God can do all things, and nothing is hard or impossible to Him.
Q. 175. When is a thing said to be "impossible"?
A. A thing is said to be "impossible" when it cannot be done. Many things that are impossible for creatures are possible for God.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Is it possible that each and every one of the One and Triune God's Elect will, without any exceptions whatsoever, receive Baptism of Water?
SB13,
Why won't you respond to my post? If we accept all of what the Baltimore Catechism taught, then the above conclusion would seem to solve all of our problems. Agreed?
-
SB13,
This is what the Baltimore Catechism states on Baptism of Desire:
Q. 174. Can God do all things?
A. God can do all things, and nothing is hard or impossible to Him.
Q. 175. When is a thing said to be "impossible"?
A. A thing is said to be "impossible" when it cannot be done. Many things that are impossible for creatures are possible for God.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Is it possible that each and every one of the One and Triune God's Elect will, without any exceptions whatsoever, receive Baptism of Water?
SB13,
Why won't you respond to my post? If we accept all of what the Baltimore Catechism taught, then the above conclusion would seem to solve all of our problems. Agreed?
If they won't accept the Catechism of Trent, there isn't a Catechism on Earth or in Heaven that would ever be accepted as long as it contradicts their point.
-
We see that the Cushingite heretics always hide behind classical Thomistic BoD in order to justify their Pelagian heresy and their heretical denial of the Tridentine dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
There is only One Baptism, Not Three
It is defined Catholic dogma that there is only one baptism. This is why the dogmatic Nicene Creed, historically professed every Sunday in the Roman Rite, reads: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.” And this dogma that there is one baptism for the remission of sins comes from Our Lord and the Apostles. It is affirmed by St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Could it be possible that there is more than one baptism for the remission of sins when Catholics have prayed and believed for 2000 years that there is only one? No.
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 12), Dec. 11, 1925: “The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.
Throughout history many popes have expressly reaffirmed this rule of faith: that there is only one baptism for the remission of sins.
The Nicene-Constantinople Creed, 381, ex cathedra: “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “Having read these holy phrases and finding ourselves in agreement (for ‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]), we have given glory to God who is the savior of all…”
To say that there are “three baptisms,” as many unfortunately do, is heretical. There is only one baptism, which is celebrated in water (de fide).
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”
Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water.
This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire. To confess “three baptisms,” and not one, is to contradict defined Catholic dogma. Did those who believe that there are three baptisms (water, blood and desire)
ever wonder why countless popes have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered to tell us about the so-called “other two”?
Ref Book OTCCTIANS MHFM
-
We see that the Cushingite heretics always hide behind classical Thomistic BoD in order to justify their Pelagian heresy and their heretical denial of the Tridentine dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
You'd like to call citing St. Thomas "hiding" because it would mask the fact that all you have to go on are inferences made by lesser minds and with far lesser graces.
-
There is only One Baptism, Not Three
It is defined Catholic dogma that there is only one baptism. This is why the dogmatic Nicene Creed, historically professed every Sunday in the Roman Rite, reads: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.” And this dogma that there is one baptism for the remission of sins comes from Our Lord and the Apostles. It is affirmed by St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Could it be possible that there is more than one baptism for the remission of sins when Catholics have prayed and believed for 2000 years that there is only one? No.
There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, but BoD and BoB belong to it analogically, not as separate from it. As St. Aquinas taught on the subject:
Summa Theologica: Question 66, Article 11
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
-
There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, but BoD and BoB belong to it analogically, not as separate from it. As St. Aquinas taught on the subject:
From Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life:
Neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.
Did Jesus really mean water to be essential for the Baptism He instituted? He did. When He started His public life Jesus came down and stood in water, in the River Jordan, where John was baptizing. He wanted, thereby, to let us know what Baptism was to mean in the Catholic Church forevermore. Baptizing forever means pouring water on you, or sprinkling you with water, or dipping you in water.
As John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, John said to Him, “I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” Then Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice.” (Matt. 3:14,15.)
Unfulfilled justice is the state of justification. Fulfilled justice is the state of salvation.
-
There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, but BoD and BoB belong to it analogically, not as separate from it. As St. Aquinas taught on the subject:
From Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life:
Neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.
Did Jesus really mean water to be essential for the Baptism He instituted? He did. When He started His public life Jesus came down and stood in water, in the River Jordan, where John was baptizing. He wanted, thereby, to let us know what Baptism was to mean in the Catholic Church forevermore. Baptizing forever means pouring water on you, or sprinkling you with water, or dipping you in water.
As John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, John said to Him, “I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” Then Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice.” (Matt. 3:14,15.)
Unfulfilled justice is the state of justification. Fulfilled justice is the state of salvation.
Are you seriously asking me to take Feeney's sorry excuse for theology over St. Aquinas? He clearly doesn't grasp what BoD/BoB is and where it falls in Church teaching. Remember it lead him to believe one can die justified yet still go to Hell. I'm surprised that doesn't scare more of you away from his lunacy, but you have your own legacies to build!
-
If you are going to use a catechism in this day and age, use the original catechism approved by Pope St. Pius V - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
This is the one all other catechisms should be compared to so you will recognize error when you see it. As it is, you do not recognize error when you see it because you've been reading books that teach error.
Trent's original catechism also is very clear when it teaches about the necessity for the desire for baptism and has a very clear teaching on perfect contrition - - - - which, according to this catechism - which btw, clearly explains the canons of it's own Council, all the other popular catechisms teach error.
They cannot both be right when their teachings oppose each other when it comes to a BOD and perfect contrition.
Did you simply not bother to actually read it or are you a bubbling mass of nonsense?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Regardless of what exception you have for the use of "Baptism of Desire" or "Baptism of Blood" as labels for these concepts, the concept as we have been slavishly describing over and over again is plainly taught. End of story.
-
Has it ever occurred to anyone defending father feeney that the Universal acceptance of catechisms IS an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible? When all the Pastors of the Church accept and Promulgate the content of the Catechism of St. Pius X and command it to be used in religious instruction and there is no dissent to it, they are morally unanimous with the Pope in their promulgation of its contents. It is therefore an Infallible act of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium
Shut the door. Game over.
-
There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, but BoD and BoB belong to it analogically, not as separate from it. As St. Aquinas taught on the subject:
From Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life:
Neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.
Did Jesus really mean water to be essential for the Baptism He instituted? He did. When He started His public life Jesus came down and stood in water, in the River Jordan, where John was baptizing. He wanted, thereby, to let us know what Baptism was to mean in the Catholic Church forevermore. Baptizing forever means pouring water on you, or sprinkling you with water, or dipping you in water.
As John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, John said to Him, “I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” Then Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice.” (Matt. 3:14,15.)
Unfulfilled justice is the state of justification. Fulfilled justice is the state of salvation.
Are you seriously asking me to take Feeney's sorry excuse for theology over St. Aquinas? He clearly doesn't grasp what BoD/BoB is and where it falls in Church teaching. Remember it lead him to believe one can die justified yet still go to Hell. I'm surprised that doesn't scare more of you away from his lunacy, but you have your own legacies to build!
Is St. Thomas correct here?
Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?
Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"--(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written in Wisdom 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.
-
There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, but BoD and BoB belong to it analogically, not as separate from it. As St. Aquinas taught on the subject:
From Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life:
Neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.
Did Jesus really mean water to be essential for the Baptism He instituted? He did. When He started His public life Jesus came down and stood in water, in the River Jordan, where John was baptizing. He wanted, thereby, to let us know what Baptism was to mean in the Catholic Church forevermore. Baptizing forever means pouring water on you, or sprinkling you with water, or dipping you in water.
As John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, John said to Him, “I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” Then Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice.” (Matt. 3:14,15.)
Unfulfilled justice is the state of justification. Fulfilled justice is the state of salvation.
Are you seriously asking me to take Feeney's sorry excuse for theology over St. Aquinas? He clearly doesn't grasp what BoD/BoB is and where it falls in Church teaching. Remember it lead him to believe one can die justified yet still go to Hell. I'm surprised that doesn't scare more of you away from his lunacy, but you have your own legacies to build!
Is St. Thomas correct here?
Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?
Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"--(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written in Wisdom 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.
The Church has corrected where St. Thomas erred.
Here is the Better question: Has the CHURCH (TO whom is given the discernment of doctrinal questions) Censured or corrected or abrogated anything St. Thomas wrote in regard to BOD or BOB?
Nope.
Has she in fact issued Catechisms promoting this doctrine?
Yep.
And have all the bishops of the world, from before Vatican II, Accepted and taught the content of these Catechisms persistently, consistently, and without an deviation since before the Council of Trent????
Yep.
Then the controversy is ended: The Mind of the Church has spoken. It's called the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The Sacramental Character of Baptism can be supplied.
The end.
-
If you are going to use a catechism in this day and age, use the original catechism approved by Pope St. Pius V - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
This is the one all other catechisms should be compared to so you will recognize error when you see it. As it is, you do not recognize error when you see it because you've been reading books that teach error.
Trent's original catechism also is very clear when it teaches about the necessity for the desire for baptism and has a very clear teaching on perfect contrition - - - - which, according to this catechism - which btw, clearly explains the canons of it's own Council, all the other popular catechisms teach error.
They cannot both be right when their teachings oppose each other when it comes to a BOD and perfect contrition.
Did you simply not bother to actually read it or are you a bubbling mass of nonsense?
It is you who are not reading what is written. In your zeal to promote salvation via NSAA you completey adulterate what the catechism actually says - for example, did you even read the part that says "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants"? This lesson is not teaching about one in danger of death at all, it is teaching about a catechumen NOT in danger of death.
If you read the catechism at all, you will see that there is another lesson in the catechism that teaches adults are to be baptized at once when there is danger of death. Now however, if you actually read the reason for delaying the adult's baptism (blue text in quote below), you will understand why ORDINARILY they are not baptized at once as the heading for the lesson states.
Further, please look up the word "AVAIL" as italicized below and use it in context of what the catechism is teaching.
Finally, you will note that death is never mentioned, nor is salvation ever promised for one's firm intention and determination to receive Baptism.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Regardless of what exception you have for the use of "Baptism of Desire" or "Baptism of Blood" as labels for these concepts, the concept as we have been slavishly describing over and over again is plainly taught. End of story.
You only wish the catechism taught a BOD and a BOB, as I demonstrated to you above, neither is taught in the catechism. The catechism is teaching about THE SACRAMENT of baptism, a BOB and a BOD is not a sacrament.
If you still refuse to accept this even after your error is pointed out to you, then you do so on account of your own pride, unwilling to admit you are mistaken as well as your own bad will.
-
This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire.
To confess “three baptisms,” and not one, is to contradict defined Catholic dogma.
Did those who believe that there are three baptisms (water, blood and desire) ever wonder why countless popes have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered to tell us about the so-called “other two”?
Dogma... All Catholics must Profess one Baptism, celebrated in water
To not do so , makes one a Heretic, and outside the Church...
Case closed...
Have a nice nite..
-
Is St. Thomas correct here?
Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?
Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"--(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written in Wisdom 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.
Not there, but he is here:
“Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.” (I Sent., d.44, q.1, a.3, ad 3)
When theologians or Church Fathers have two opposing views on an important topic, we leave it to the Popes to sort it out. St. Thomas had stated both views at different points in his career, and since we don't follow the rule of abrogation, all that must be done is for the proper authority to choose between the two. It would be Pope Pius IX to settle that one. It's actually a very similar situation to St. Augustine on BoD, who earlier in his life supported the idea only to later reject it. All evidence suggests that the likes of St. Pius V and St. Pius X had selected which view to support. It's interesting to see the Pius' come through so strongly on these matters!
-
So let me see if I understand correctly
Baptism of Desire is true because...
IT was taught by St Thomas (and other theologians) and it was published in Baltimore Catechism and St Pius X Catechism?
Then we have a problem... at least three Catechisms received the addition of Baptism of Desire more than 200 years after the death of the Priest who wrote the Catechism. And no one knows who and why theologians and/or the publisher added the Baptism of desire. And this question is so important that is very serious why when publishing the new editions they have included things that were not in the original.
I could name at least three Catechisms (approved by the Church) from 1598, 1614 and 1787 that does not say about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
-
Omission does not equal negation.
-
The major issue is:
Baptism of desire is truth because it was a teaching of the Church theologians plus a teaching of recent Catechisms.
If that line of argument is true, then:
Premise: teachings of theologians are part as the Universal Magisterium as long as the Church teaches on their Catechisms the same issues.
By that line of taught if a future Catechism say that "The Dogma of the Virgin Conception must not be taken literally but is a dogma" then people are going to use the teaching of St Thomas to consider this part of the Magisterium and thus consider that is possible that St Thomas was not wrong.
-
The major issue is:
Baptism of desire is truth because it was a teaching of the Church theologians plus a teaching of recent Catechisms.
If that line of argument is true, then:
Premise: teachings of theologians are part as the Universal Magisterium as long as the Church teaches on their Catechisms the same issues.
By that line of taught if a future Catechism say that "The Dogma of the Virgin Conception must not be taken literally but is a dogma" then people are going to use the teaching of St Thomas to consider this part of the Magisterium and thus consider that is possible that St Thomas was not wrong.
The thought that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible and cannot produce such drivel hasn't passed through your mind?
Or can the Church officially sanction error?
-
The major issue is:
Baptism of desire is truth because it was a teaching of the Church theologians plus a teaching of recent Catechisms.
If that line of argument is true, then:
Premise: teachings of theologians are part as the Universal Magisterium as long as the Church teaches on their Catechisms the same issues.
By that line of taught if a future Catechism say that "The Dogma of the Virgin Conception must not be taken literally but is a dogma" then people are going to use the teaching of St Thomas to consider this part of the Magisterium and thus consider that is possible that St Thomas was not wrong.
The thought that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible and cannot produce such drivel hasn't passed through your mind?
Or can the Church officially sanction error?
You consider Baptism of Desire to be part of ''Ordinary Universal Magisterium'' in the first place, I don't, that's why I wanted to know the line of thought behind the reason of baptism of desire to be considered part of the Church Magisterium.
Premise: to be part of the Ordinary Magisterium the teaching must be preached by theologians and by Catechisms..
Is the "premise" I wrote above correct or wrong?
P.S: Catechisms are not infallible. They contain error and a quick look at the St Pius X Catechism will show you that it contains error.
-
When the content of the works of theologians and catechisms is espoused by all the bishops of the world in union with the pope and promoted as true in further editions of catechisms with universal episcopal acceptance, is that universal acceptance and promulgation fallible or infallible?
-
When the content of the works of theologians and catechisms is espoused by all the bishops of the world in union with the pope and promoted as true in further editions of catechisms with universal episcopal acceptance, is that universal acceptance and promulgation fallible or infallible?
False because as I told you I have at least three Catechisms which don't have Baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
That doctrine was added more than 200 yeas after the Catechism was promulgated and used in the 1600, 1700 and 1800. It was not until mid of 1800 that this was added. So by the year of 1805 there was no universal episcopal acceptance, this "universal" episcopal acceptance may have happened after the promulgation of St Pius X Catechism but truth to be told every country had its own Catechism already and in North America and other Countries this Catechism was not known until recent times.
I have digitalized (facsimile copies) Catechisms from: 1598, 1614, 1787, 1805, 1855.. all of five have Imprimatur by different Bishops and places , and none of them have BOD/BOD
Also there's the Penny Catechism which does not teach BOD/BOB but I don't have it in my hands to tell you the date it was published.
-
Omission is not negation not a substantial change. Only if it said BOD is not true then said it IS true would it be a substantial negation.
-
Omission is not negation not a substantial change. Only if it said BOD is not true then said it IS true would it be a substantial negation.
From 1594 to 1855 these Catechisms didn't teach Baptism of Desired and suddenly appeared on the newer editions.
How the faithful will know if the things that are in the Catechism of Christ and not of men? They have to study it, they cannot accept the Catechism just because it was "universally" approved. And it wasn't until 150 years ago that this doctrine of BOD/BOB appeared as "de fide", before that it was only theological issues and not articles of Dogma.
That is to show that the Baptism of Desire doctrine is external to the Catechisms and was added by theologians 200 years after it was published originally, by that which we don't know who was such theologians are and why they added, when they added and if any Bishop or the Pope gave them approving these additions.
We don't even know if the Bishops who approved such additions to the Catechisms were aware of the additions because there's no such thing as "In this edition we add this X, Y Z because of A, B, C."
They simply added and period, that's it. We must not accept that, that is very dangerous.
-
It is you who are not reading what is written. In your zeal to promote salvation via NSAA you completey adulterate what the catechism actually says - for example, did you even read the part that says "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants"? This lesson is not teaching about one in danger of death at all, it is teaching about a catechumen NOT in danger of death.
If you read the catechism at all, you will see that there is another lesson in the catechism that teaches adults are to be baptized at once when there is danger of death. Now however, if you actually read the reason for delaying the adult's baptism (blue text in quote below), you will understand why ORDINARILY they are not baptized at once as the heading for the lesson states.
Further, please look up the word "AVAIL" as italicized below and use it in context of what the catechism is teaching.
Finally, you will note that death is never mentioned, nor is salvation ever promised for one's firm intention and determination to receive Baptism.
So your defense is poor reading comprehension!
Let me see if I can decipher this...
Am I correct in stating that you believe that untimely death is not what is being referred to, but instead the comparative danger of approaching the sacrament with bad dispositions?
In that case, Sir Stubbsworth, what on earth could cause an "accident" rendering it "impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters"? Not an act of will, but an accident. Not simply delayed, but impossible. Secondly, why would there be less danger of it for adults? There's precisely no danger of it from newborns.
Your premise makes absolutely no sense in this context.
It looks like you need some help, I'll give you a hint: it comes just after the last stage of life. The reason that there is less urgency for adults is because a willing Catechumen actively possesses a desire for Baptism unlike infants. Therefore the prospect of the baby dying carries far more consequences in this context.
I don't get how someone can be so incapable of deriving the correct meaning and context from a few simple statements. Were you homeschooled by a broken Speak & Spell?
Guess I should have known you would have a follow up to your brilliant interpretation of "Can the absence of Baptism be supplied?" from the St. Pius X Catechism as asking for examples of non-Baptisms.
-
Omission is not negation not a substantial change. Only if it said BOD is not true then said it IS true would it be a substantial negation.
From 1594 to 1855 these Catechisms didn't teach Baptism of Desired and suddenly appeared on the newer editions.
How the faithful will know if the things that are in the Catechism of Christ and not of men? They have to study it, they cannot accept the Catechism just because it was "universally" approved. And it wasn't until 150 years ago that this doctrine of BOD/BOB appeared as "de fide", before that it was only theological issues and not articles of Dogma.
That is to show that the Baptism of Desire doctrine is external to the Catechisms and was added by theologians 200 years after it was published originally, by that which we don't know who was such theologians are and why they added, when they added and if any Bishop or the Pope gave them approving these additions.
We don't even know if the Bishops who approved such additions to the Catechisms were aware of the additions because there's no such thing as "In this edition we add this X, Y Z because of A, B, C."
They simply added and period, that's it. We must not accept that, that is very dangerous.
Ridiculous, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus CLEARLY say Trent taught BOD. They lived nearer than us to the council and were fluent in Latin, who are WE to say it is false when THEY said Trent taught it? The audacity is flummoxing.
Again, you misunderstand the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which is infallible. If ALL THE BISHOPS TODAY WITH THE POPE were to positively affirm, "Yes, BOD is legit" it would be an infallible statement. And in effect this has been done insofar as the Catechism of Pius X has been universally received and promulgated.
No escaping the facts.
-
There's no single teach of Coucil of Trent regarding Baptism of Desire. St Alphonsus cites the Council of Trent on this:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
justification cannot take place without water baptism or the desire for it, as it is written: unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot be saved
I will quote Fr. Feeney below excerpts of the book Bread of Life, (http://www.fatherfeeney.org/other/bread/bread7.html) published in 1952 and reprinted in 1974 which simplified in a very understandable way:
--Start of the quote, parts of Chapter 7 --
Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood" and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, "How many kinds of Baptism are there?": "There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood."
"That is heresy! There is only one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith. (Eph. 4:5.) The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that this one Baptism, which is administered by water, is the one which must be faithfully confessed by all.
The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the Church:
If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, "unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.
Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is "Baptism of Desire," as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?"
Q. What. does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."
--end of the quote, parts of Chapter 7 --
The chapter goes on, I suggest you to read it all. It's very good.
-
There's no single teach of Coucil of Trent regarding Baptism of Desire. St Alphonsus cites the Council of Trent on this:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
justification cannot take place without water baptism or the desire for it, as it is written: unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot be saved
I will quote Fr. Feeney below excerpts of the book Bread of Life, (http://www.fatherfeeney.org/other/bread/bread7.html) published in 1952 and reprinted in 1974 which simplified in a very understandable way:
--Start of the quote, parts of Chapter 7 --
Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood" and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, "How many kinds of Baptism are there?": "There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood."
"That is heresy! There is only one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith. (Eph. 4:5.) The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that this one Baptism, which is administered by water, is the one which must be faithfully confessed by all.
The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the Church:
If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, "unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.
Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is "Baptism of Desire," as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?"
Q. What. does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."
--end of the quote, parts of Chapter 7 --
The chapter goes on, I suggest you to read it all. It's very good.
I don't get how Fr. Feeney could be a theologian. Sounds rather amateurish.
A contemporary theologian he should have known, Fraghi, makes this clear in his work from a 1937 Angelicuм dissertation, De Membris Ecclesiæ
https://archive.org/stream/DeMembrisEcclesiae/De%20Membris%20Ecclesiae%20-%20Fraghi%2C%20Sebastianus#page/n31/mode/2up
Quoting Bellarmine on page 66, you can read the scans in Latin in the Link:
Praeterea character non proprie unit hominem cuм capite, sed est signum potestatis et unionis cuiusdam, et ideo in inferno illo signo cognoscentur qui fuerunt membra Christi. Quod autem non uniat patet: nam non unit exterius cuм sit res invisibilis: nec interius cuм non sit actus nec habitus operativus. Divus Thomas primam unionem internam ponit in fide.
"Moreover, the [baptismal] character does not itself unite a man with the head, but it is a sign of a certain power and union, and so in hell by that sign they who were members of Christ may be known. But what may not unite is clear: for it [the baptismal character] does not unite externally since it is an invisible thing: nor internally since it is not an action or operative habit. Saint Thomas places the first union [to the Body of Christ] in faith."
Fr. Feeney fall down. Go boom. lol. The BAPTISMAL CHARACTER IS A SIGN of the sanctifying grace received in baptism. It is not a unitive power, the Sanctifying GRACE is the unitive power. But Sanctifying Grace can be had WITHOUT the Sacramental Character, because it is not limited to it, because the character signifies IT, the Sanctifying grace received.
-
Since you are in need of a "Approved" Theologian, let's use a Saint and Doctor of the Church which is St. Alphonsus.
St Alphonsus calls it ''Baptismus flaminis'' (he latter explain "it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit)
Let's examine his position on Baptismus Flaminis:
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing[Baptismus flaminis] is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
So it's clear the St Alhponsus teaches that Baptism of blowing (flaminis) does not remove actual sins. Quoting Bro. Peter " According to his[St. Alphonsus] explanation, someone who dies with a ‘baptism of desire’ may need to spend time in Purgatory."
OK so far? Well let's move on.
The problem with that Theological teaching is that the Church never teaches that there's ANY kind of Baptism that removes only the Original Sin.
Council of Trent, Session 3, Chapter 6
WHO ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH CHRIST: "But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just."
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
So... you have to find a Teaching of the Church defining in which conditions Baptism only removes the Original Sin in order to say that the Theological Doctrine of St Alphonsus and St Thomas Aquinas is part of the Universe Magisterium
Since the Church says that ONLY Baptism of Water is the sacrament which cleans all current sins and original sin and to say it's not like this is heretical, then it's impossible for Baptism of Desire to be a teaching of the Church.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”
-
Since you are in need of a "Approved" Theologian, let's use a Saint and Doctor of the Church which is St. Alphonsus.
St Alphonsus calls it ''Baptismus flaminis'' (he latter explain "it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit)
Let's examine his position on Baptismus Flaminis:
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing[Baptismus flaminis] is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
So it's clear the St Alhponsus teaches that Baptism of blowing (flaminis) does not remove actual sins. Quoting Bro. Peter " According to his[St. Alphonsus] explanation, someone who dies with a ‘baptism of desire’ may need to spend time in Purgatory."
OK so far? Well let's move on.
The problem with that Theological teaching is that the Church never teaches that there's ANY kind of Baptism that removes only the Original Sin.
Council of Trent, Session 3, Chapter 6
WHO ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH CHRIST: "But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just."
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
So... you have to find a Teaching of the Church defining in which conditions Baptism only removes the Original Sin in order to say that the Theological Doctrine of St Alphonsus and St Thomas Aquinas is part of the Universe Magisterium
Since the Church says that ONLY Baptism of Water is the sacrament which cleans all current sins and original sin and to say it's not like this is heretical, then it's impossible for Baptism of Desire to be a teaching of the Church.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”
But this is so obvious. Like PAINFULLY obvious!
1. Baptism of Desire is not a sacramental baptism, but called baptism only by analogy, since it accomplishes in part what water baptism accomplishes in whole: The remission of sins and the reception of sanctifying grace.
You are laboring under a strawman argument that baptism of desire functions exactly like baptism. Anyone can tell you it does NOT. It ANALOGOUS to baptism.
BUT, the fundamental problem you are dealing with is you cannot conceive of Grace apart from sacraments, which is odd, because if you think about it you admit it all the time:
2. If a person has committed a mortal sin, and they are baptized, and lie dying in a hospital bed, and they make a PERFECT act of Contrition, acknowledging their NEED for the sacrament of penance, and vowing to receive it, and they die in that state (having been able to make a perfect act of contrition) are their sins forgiven or not? They ARE FORGIVEN. The sanctifying grace received in Penance was just received outside the sacrament of Penance, but not WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR IT. It is still necessary to have if available, and a perfect act of contrition means you admit that.
3. An act of Spiritual Communion. IN an act of Spiritual communion, you admit that to receive Christ in the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, because you express your desire to receive him sacramentally, but cannot, and instead ask him to come into your heart spiritually. And you receive sanctifying grace for that APART from ACTUAL reception of the sacrament, yet while ACKNOWLEDGING YOU NEED the sacrament.
4. Now, it is no different with baptism. When a person who desires baptism, longs for it, ADMITS it is their only hope of salvation, wills to receive it and puts no obstacles in the way, should he die an untimely death, will be justified, and BEING Justified, will attain to heaven (eventually perhaps).
5. Now, there is a very important distinction you need to make that you haven't made, and which the Dimonds don't seem to make either:
The difference between the reception of SANCTIFYING Grace, and SACRAMENTAL grace.
Sanctifying Grace is the Grace common to ALL the Sacraments. Every Sacrament either gives or increases Sanctifying Grace.
But the SACRAMENTAL Grace is the Grace that Can only be received in the actual reception of the Sacrament.
So, for example, a perfect act of Contrition will grant you sanctifying grace, but it will NOT grant you the SACRAMENTAL grace of Penance, which is an increased resistance to those sins you confessed in confession.
Again, in the Eucharist, you receive an increase in Sanctifying grace when you make an act of Spiritual communion, but you don't SACRAMENTALLY receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
And likewise, in Baptism of Desire, you receive the remission of the guilt original Sin, and actual sin, But not the remission of ALL THE TEMPORAL punishment due to Sin OR the Sacramental Character of baptism. because those are only proper to the ACTUAL RECEPTION of the sacrament.
Now why is this possible? Simple. "Man looks at outward things, but the Lord looks at the heart." God judges the intention of man, and for him, the will counts for the act if the act cannot be had through no fault of your own. This is a general principle, and you HAVE to admit it is applicable to Penance, it is applicable to the Eucharist, and it is applicable to baptism.
The problem with that Theological teaching is that the Church never teaches that there's ANY kind of Baptism that removes only the Original Sin.
BoD DOESN'T remove only original sin, it also removes ACTUAL sin. It doesn't remove all the Temporal PUNISHMENT due to sin, because that is a sacramental Grace of baptism only received in the sacrament itself.
Here is my question for YOU:
How can BoD UNDERMINE Baptism when it can ONLY be effective for those who admit they need it?
-
Of course Fr Feeney book is "rather amateurish" when comparing to St Thomas theologian teachings
THAT'S WHY I SAID "Fr Feeney simplifies in a very understandable way"
Also I gave you the link of the book. If you read the Chapter I told you to read, you would see it's a book for layman, for the simple Catholic,
1) Look at the name of the book "Bread of Life". Does it sound like a Theology manual?
2) On the Foreword of the 1952 edition, which you could access by the link I gave you, Fr Feeney says "I have been persuaded by the members of my Order, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to publish some of the talks I have been giving on Thursday evenings at Saint Benedict Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, during the past ten years."
What part of "Some of the talks" didn't you understand? Does he say it's a Theology book? Does he say that it's a Latim-Greek translation of the New Testament?
Does he says that it's a Theological work? Does he says that it's a study of Summa Theologica?
Does he says that the book is a Theological Study of Baptism????????
NO YOUR IMBECILE!
3) the book was very popular in when it was released and it was known for its " simple language".
So you ignore all the facts in order to say "It sounds rather amateurish" and then showing a "Approved Theological Study in Latim" by an "LATIM WRITER THEOLOGIAN" that is superior to Fr. Feeney.
That's what I hate about some Catholics.
-
It is not amaterurish because of form, but because of content. It is one thing to simplify, it is another to be simplistic. One is a wonderful pastoral device, the other creates mental glitches in the brain. And Fr. Feeney is far too simplistic to be taken seriously. That's all.
-
You stated
"BoD DOESN'T remove only original sin, it also removes ACTUAL sin."
Where the Church teaches it? Don't use theologian.
-
You stated
"BoD DOESN'T remove only original sin, it also removes ACTUAL sin."
Where the Church teaches it? Don't use theologian.
I do not acknowledge you artificial constraints, and neither did Pope Pius IX:
“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.
The DZ means Denzingers sources of Catholic Dogma, Here:
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php
Scroll down to 1683
Now the Theologians Before Vatican II clearly teach that Baptism of Desire removes actual sin.
You just proved it yourself from St. Alphonsus:
“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."
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
In order to St Alphonsus be right, the Council of Trent should have said that there are other ways other than Baptism of Water.
And the Council says that ONLY Baptism of Water
ALSO, the Sanctifing Grace is not inseparable of Water Baptism as many theologians teaches
Council of Chalcedon, Pope Saint Leo the Great, Letter to Flavian (martyr) section, 451 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >
"For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
Many theologians have said that these can be separable, that's why the teaching of the Church is only confined to the Pope , successor of St Peter and not theologians.
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
In order to St Alphonsus be right, the Council of Trent should have said that there are other ways other than Baptism of Water.
And the Council says that ONLY Baptism of Water
ALSO, the Sanctifing Grace is not inseparable of Water Baptism as many theologians teaches
Council of Chalcedon, Pope Saint Leo the Great, Letter to Flavian (martyr) section, 451 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >
"For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
Many theologians have said that these can be separable, that's why the teaching of the Church is only confined to the Pope , successor of St Peter and not theologians.
Ah, you are working from the Dimond brothers. I remember those texts.
The problem here is that Pope St. Leo is making a Christological point, this is in the context of Chalcedon, and showing that just as how all these elements are united and not divisible in baptism, so Christ is united and not divisible. Baptism itself as a sacrament is the context.
But here is plenty of evidence to the contrary of what you imagine:
Pope Innocent III (13th century): From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, 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.," 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 immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."
The problem is that the saints and the theologians TELL US what TRENT MEANT, and they lived right after it.
St. Charles Borromeo who gave us the Catechism of Trent:
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16th century): De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."
The Church Militant De Ecclesia Militante, c. 3: "Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah…"
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."
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
The Douay Catechism (17th century): "Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
-
You can quote thousands of Theologians for what I care.
"THEOLOGIANS TELL US what TRENT MEANT" , St Alphonsus quoted Session 14 of the Council of Trent thinking he was quoting Session 7, so as good as St Alphonsus was, he was reading the Session 14 thinking it was on Baptism , which is not true.
If you want to tell people that Baptism of Desire is a teaching of the Church, you must provide quotes from the teaching of the Church and not from Theologians
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
The book "Outside the Church There's Absolute no Salvation" is perfect because it refutes every single argument for Baptism of Desire, including the ones you tried to show me.
Also I'm happily citing their website whatever I can because there are good information and TRUE CATHOLIC doctrine, not Theological speculations.
When they want to prove a point, they don't name "Approved theologians", they use the teaching of the Church. The Saints are not infallible and as much as St Thomas was the best Theologian of the Catholic Church, he was wrong at least in three crucial issues, one of them was the Conception of the Virgin Mary.
-
You can quote thousands of Theologians for what I care.
If you want to tell people that Baptism of Desire is a teaching of the Church, you must provide quotes from the teaching of the Church and not from Theologians
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
The book "Outside the Church There's Absolute no Salvation" is perfect because it refutes every single argument for Baptism of Desire, including the ones you tried to show me.
Also I'm happily citing their website whatever I can because there are good information and TRUE CATHOLIC doctrine, not Theological speculations.
When they want to prove a point, they don't name "Approved theologians", they use the teaching of the Church. The Saints are not infallible and as much as St Thomas was the best Theologian of the Catholic Church, he was wrong at least in three crucial issues, one of them was the Conception of the Virgin Mary.
Ok, then Let's Refer to the Church's condemnation of the errors of Baius, an official act of the Church irreformable by its very nature:
Denzinger http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1300
1032 32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins. -Condemned-
This is stating that Charity, where it is present brings about the remission of sins. Now a catechumen, when he puts his faith in Christ, receives Charity, because he is justified, as Fr. Feeney admits. NOw, can one who is justified, and has received the remission of his sins, should he die in that state, NOT attain to heaven when it is the PURPOSE of ALL Justification?
-
You can quote thousands of Theologians for what I care.
"THEOLOGIANS TELL US what TRENT MEANT" , St Alphonsus quoted Session 14 of the Council of Trent thinking he was quoting Session 7, so as good as St Alphonsus was, he was reading the Session 14 thinking it was on Baptism , which is not true.
If you want to tell people that Baptism of Desire is a teaching of the Church, you must provide quotes from the teaching of the Church and not from Theologians
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."
The book "Outside the Church There's Absolute no Salvation" is perfect because it refutes every single argument for Baptism of Desire, including the ones you tried to show me.
Also I'm happily citing their website whatever I can because there are good information and TRUE CATHOLIC doctrine, not Theological speculations.
When they want to prove a point, they don't name "Approved theologians", they use the teaching of the Church. The Saints are not infallible and as much as St Thomas was the best Theologian of the Catholic Church, he was wrong at least in three crucial issues, one of them was the Conception of the Virgin Mary.
This just proves you don't have the mind of the Church in your best interest, you just desire to be correct. Well DESIRE will not avail your opinion unto salvation I am afraid:
Pope Pius IX says:
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
And as Pope Pius XII says:
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), DZ 2313.
Sorry, in this you simply do not follow the Church's methodology, but a contrived fundamentalism.
-
I quote the Brothers: " Du Bay’s propositions are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins. "
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
That's why St Pius V condemned the following:
Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions of sins.”
Every post you make, you have a Theology maneuver trying to explain Baptism of Desire in very different ways. Also you say that St Alphonsus was right but I showed you that the teaching in his book is contrary to the Council of Trent, so the Council of Trent is right and he is wrong
You want to believe in Baptism of Desire and for that you have to use the teach of theologians, because nowhere in the teaching of the Church you'll find the explanation of Baptism of Desire.
So feel free to continue quoting theologians because even the greatest , St Thomas Aquinas, was wrong at least in three crucial issues.
-
I quote the Brothers: " Du Bay’s propositions are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins. "
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
That's why St Pius V condemned the following:
Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions of sins.”
How do you get mileage out of that last quote? It is CONDEMNED, meaning the OPPOSITE is true. Meaning:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents with the remissions of sins.”
-
I quote the Brothers: " Du Bay’s propositions are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins. "
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
That's why St Pius V condemned the following:
Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions of sins.”
How do you get mileage out of that last quote? It is CONDEMNED, meaning the OPPOSITE is true. Meaning:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents with the remissions of sins.”
Because it can't happen without the remission of sins, just like St Pius V said. What are you trying to say this time?
What's your new theological maneuver?
-
Good one on bringing up Michael Du Bay, Gregory! It really is the best reason to permanently retire any though of Feeney's sound "theology".
I quote the Brothers: " Du Bay’s propositions are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins. "
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
That's why St Pius V condemned the following:
Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions of sins.”
How do you get mileage out of that last quote? It is CONDEMNED, meaning the OPPOSITE is true. Meaning:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents with the remissions of sins.”
Because it can't happen without the remission of sins, just like St Pius V said. What are you trying to say this time?
What's your new theological maneuver?
It's called reading without crossing your eyes!
We can make the following statements:
-It is possible for Catechumens and penitents to possess perfect charity and faith.
-Those who have the aforementioned charity and faith have their sins remitted.
-A sincere Catechumen is in the state of grace necessary to go to Heaven should they die suddenly.
-
It is you who are not reading what is written. In your zeal to promote salvation via NSAA you completey adulterate what the catechism actually says - for example, did you even read the part that says "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants"? This lesson is not teaching about one in danger of death at all, it is teaching about a catechumen NOT in danger of death.
If you read the catechism at all, you will see that there is another lesson in the catechism that teaches adults are to be baptized at once when there is danger of death. Now however, if you actually read the reason for delaying the adult's baptism (blue text in quote below), you will understand why ORDINARILY they are not baptized at once as the heading for the lesson states.
Further, please look up the word "AVAIL" as italicized below and use it in context of what the catechism is teaching.
Finally, you will note that death is never mentioned, nor is salvation ever promised for one's firm intention and determination to receive Baptism.
So your defense is poor reading comprehension!
Let me see if I can decipher this...
Am I correct in stating that you believe that untimely death is not what is being referred to, but instead the comparative danger of approaching the sacrament with bad dispositions?
In that case, Sir Stubbsworth, what on earth could cause an "accident" rendering it "impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters"? Not an act of will, but an accident. Not simply delayed, but impossible. Secondly, why would there be less danger of it for adults? There's precisely no danger of it from newborns.
Your premise makes absolutely no sense in this context.
It looks like you need some help, I'll give you a hint: it comes just after the last stage of life. The reason that there is less urgency for adults is because a willing Catechumen actively possesses a desire for Baptism unlike infants. Therefore the prospect of the baby dying carries far more consequences in this context.
I don't get how someone can be so incapable of deriving the correct meaning and context from a few simple statements. Were you homeschooled by a broken Speak & Spell?
Guess I should have known you would have a follow up to your brilliant interpretation of "Can the absence of Baptism be supplied?" from the St. Pius X Catechism as asking for examples of non-Baptisms.
You need to try hard as you possibly can to actually read what is written, at least this time. This reply will be directed at helping you read what is actually written so that this time, you do not take anything out of context.
First, make a note in your mind that the Catechism is teaching about the sacrament, not about a non-sacrament. This should help you immensely, but only as long as you are honest with yourself.
Second, "Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once" is your clue the chapter is speaking about the sacrament of baptism because the sacrament requires a minister to actually baptize the catechumen. Otherwise the title might say something like "In the event of an unforeseen accident, ordinarily, a BOD is assumed at once". - Do you see that?
Third, the reason for the delay is advantageous. If you read what I highlighted in blue for you, you will see the Church's marvelous reasons for the delay - and salvation in the event of accidental death via a BOD is not one of the reasons.
Fourth, please note the word "accident" means what it says. It could mean accidental death, it could mean a giant tree blew across the road and killed the horses that were pulling the carriage delaying the baptism for a week.
Fifth; will "avail" them to grace and righteousness." is not guaranteeing the reward of salvation. It is also not even guaranteeing grace and righteousness. (this is why you need to look up the word "avail" lest you scandalize yourself further by your misunderstanding of what is written.)
Reading the next two lessons, In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptised At Once actually teaches about the baptizing when one actually is in danger of death and Dispositions for Baptism teaches the Church teaching on a BOD.
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
You cannot use this argument when those you are debating embrace the Cekadian mindset of what the UOM even is and that the Council is subject to the UOM - never mind that the pope who promulgated the dogmatic canons are the head of the UOM.
There is no hope for this debate to ever end as long as the dogmatic decrees are not the infallible last word.
-
I thoroughly debunked the duBay quote to Nishant about a year ago. You actually have to know what duBay was teaching to understand it. But anything taken out of context in order to back up the BoD dogma myth.
-
Stubbs, you need to start repeating to yourself what you post on these forums. You also need to take an ESL course ASAP!
First, make a note in your mind that the Catechism is teaching about the sacrament, not about a non-sacrament. This should help you immensely, but only as long as you are honest with yourself.
That's why the concepts of BoD and BoB necessarily belong to the same Sacrament. It's relational and it's analogical. The only time they are brought up is to describe the dire circuмstances surrounding Baptism and how to judge externally whether or not dying with faith and a desire for the Sacrament is sufficient for being considered as part of the Church and therefore saved.
Second, "Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once" is your clue the chapter is speaking about the sacrament of baptism because the sacrament requires a minister to actually baptize the catechumen. Otherwise the title might say something like "In the event of an unforeseen accident, ordinarily, a BOD is assumed at once"
It's a subheading to introduce the subsection. It declares the practice, then goes on to explain it. It may not be written the way you'd like it to be, but then it was obviously written for higher reading levels than the one you have obtained. I'd like to see Cantarella or Ladislaus back you up on that one!
Third, the reason for the delay is advantageous. If you read what I highlighted in blue for you, you will see the Church's marvelous reasons for the delay - and salvation in the event of accidental death via a BOD is not one of the reasons.
It's not the reason for the delay of adult Baptism, it's the reason why dead Catechumens aren't consigned to Hell automatically. Of course they have to be genuine, just like the rest of us.
Fourth, please note the word "accident" means what it says. It could mean accidental death,
Well now could it really? Are you sure you want to concede that point? Because if that is a possible scenario, then it would mean those Catechumens who fulfill the right conditions would be saved. Naturally, this includes their interior dispositions but as far as the Church can judge the exterior, they have died within the Church. Like with anyone else who dies in apparent good graces, we have no right to make the assumption that all of them are in Hell. This is all about allowing for the possibility which Feeneyites and Dimoniacs absolutely do not, but declare all such individuals to be in Hell.
it could mean a giant tree blew across the road and killed the horses that were pulling the carriage delaying the baptism for a week.
Doh, you were so close!
No it couldn't possibly mean that. "Impossible" kind of rules out all future "possibilities" would you not agree? A non-fatal accident or an accident that caused a mere delay in the administration of the matter and form could never qualify as making it impossible to receive water Baptism... unless the person dies before it can be attempted again. Otherwise it would theoretically still be possible at a later date to perform it!
Is it just any ole kind of accident? No. It's an accident that makes it impossible for an adult to have access to the water. What's next for you?
"Oh, it only meant impossible within a reasonable amount of time!"
:facepalm:
Fifth; will "avail" them to grace and righteousness." is not guaranteeing the reward of salvation. It is also not even guaranteeing grace and righteousness. (this is why you need to look up the word "avail" lest you scandalize yourself further by your misunderstanding of what is written.)
Reading the next two lessons, In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptised At Once actually teaches about the baptizing when one actually is in danger of death and Dispositions for Baptism teaches the Church teaching on a BOD.
"Avail" does not hurt my case, but it obliterates yours. Of course it helps them to grace and righteousness... along with the Holy Spirit of course!
How by your reckoning, Stubbs, could any amount of intention and determination stand to "help" an individual whose access to the "salutary waters" has just been described in the same sentence as "impossible"?
On your last point: when you know a person is in danger of death, it wouldn't qualify as an unforeseen accident and is clearly still within the realm of possibility to Baptize. Thus, it has nothing to do with BoD/BoB. We aren't talking culpable delays here and impossibility.
It's like all you know how to do is define one word at a time while oblivious to it's usage in any given sentence, virtually guaranteeing that you will choose the wrong definition. You aren't cut out for this.
-
I thoroughly debunked the duBay quote to Nishant about a year ago. You actually have to know what duBay was teaching to understand it. But anything taken out of context in order to back up the BoD dogma myth.
It's not being used directly on BoD but on Feeney's concept of being justified without salvation upon death. You might conceive of a different way to dispute BoD, but you can't use Feeney's logic.
-
Stubbs, you need to start repeating to yourself what you write on these forums. You also need to take an ESL course ASAP!
First, make a note in your mind that the Catechism is teaching about the sacrament, not about a non-sacrament. This should help you immensely, but only as long as you are honest with yourself.
That's why the concepts of BoD and BoB necessarily belong to the same Sacrament. It's relational and it's analogical. The only time they are brought up is to describe the dire circuмstances surrounding Baptism and how to judge externally whether or not dying with faith and a desire for the Sacrament is sufficient for being considered as part of the Church and therefore saved.
The *concepts* of BoD and BoB? The Ideas of a BOD and BOB? The theory of a BOD and BOB? .... judge externally whether or not dying with faith and a desire for the Sacrament is sufficient for being considered as part of the Church and therefore saved."
Do you not know that salvation via faith alone is Protestant and is condemned?
You go to great lengths to twist what the catechism actually teaches, in order for you to squeeze a BOD in there somewhere.
No need to reply until you want to be honest about what is being taught. The catechism teaches that ordinarily, adults are not baptized at once, for the reasons I highlighted in blue, not because they'll go to heaven anyway via NSAA.
Let us hope in your last agony that some unforeseen accident does not prevent a priest from administering to you the Last Sacraments, but you can take comfort today knowing if that does happen, your firm determination and desire to receive the sacrament will avail you to grace and righteousness.
-
Do you not know that salvation via faith alone is Protestant and is condemned?
You go to great lengths to twist what the catechism actually teaches, in order for you to squeeze a BOD in there somewhere.
If the Catechumens believed that, they wouldn't desire Baptism in the first place! It's just common sense to me and to most people who've studied this subject. I'm not inventing anything new here.
As for you, if there's anything left to squeeze out of your argument that isn't already splattered all over the pavement, I'd be interested to see it. I believe you've strained to hard you might have blown your own brains out!
No need to reply until you want to be honest about what is being taught. The catechism teaches that ordinarily, adults are not baptized at once, for the reasons I highlighted in blue, not because they'll go to heaven anyway via NSAA.
Oh I don't reply out of need, but because this is like shooting dead fish in a barrel. It's also fairly redundant and I'll eventually get tired of it.
To repeat, BoD/BoB are not the reasons why adult Baptism is delayed. They describe how adult Catechumens gain access to the Church in the event of premature death. In that sense and in that sense only is there less danger to the Catechumen in delaying as compared to an infant.
Now, you could say there is more danger to the Church if an adult not properly disposed is Baptized, but that is clearly not what that subsection is referring to.
Let us hope in your last agony that some unforeseen accident does not prevent a priest from administering to you the Last Sacraments, but you can take comfort today knowing if that does happen, your firm determination and desire to receive the sacrament will avail you to grace and righteousness.
It's called making a perfect Act of Contrition, and yes I will take comfort and resolve myself should that situation ever befall me. Thanks!
-
Let us hope in your last agony that some unforeseen accident does not prevent a priest from administering to you the Last Sacraments, but you can take comfort today knowing if that does happen, your firm determination and desire to receive the sacrament will avail you to grace and righteousness.
It's called making a perfect Act of Contrition, and yes I will take comfort and resolve myself should that situation ever befall me. Thanks!
Not me, I always pray to be delivered from the sudden and unprovided death. God forbid that I would need to depend on my own sincerity to make a perfect act of contrition in my last agony. What an absolutely horrifying thought.
-
Let us hope in your last agony that some unforeseen accident does not prevent a priest from administering to you the Last Sacraments, but you can take comfort today knowing if that does happen, your firm determination and desire to receive the sacrament will avail you to grace and righteousness.
It's called making a perfect Act of Contrition, and yes I will take comfort and resolve myself should that situation ever befall me. Thanks!
Not me, I always pray to be delivered from the sudden and unprovided death. God forbid that I would need to depend on my own sincerity to make a perfect act of contrition in my last agony. What an absolutely horrifying thought.
Thanks for sharing that horrifying thought!
-
I thoroughly debunked the duBay quote to Nishant about a year ago. You actually have to know what duBay was teaching to understand it. But anything taken out of context in order to back up the BoD dogma myth.
It's not being used directly on BoD but on Feeney's concept of being justified without salvation upon death. You might conceive of a different way to dispute BoD, but you can't use Feeney's logic.
I understand how it's being used, but it doesn't apply. duBay was trying to teach something altogether different.
-
I thoroughly debunked the duBay quote to Nishant about a year ago. You actually have to know what duBay was teaching to understand it. But anything taken out of context in order to back up the BoD dogma myth.
It's not being used directly on BoD but on Feeney's concept of being justified without salvation upon death. You might conceive of a different way to dispute BoD, but you can't use Feeney's logic.
I understand how it's being used, but it doesn't apply. duBay was trying to teach something altogether different.
Their ideas rattailed insofar as separating justification from sanctifying grace.
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
You cannot use this argument when those you are debating embrace the Cekadian mindset of what the UOM even is and that the Council is subject to the UOM - never mind that the pope who promulgated the dogmatic canons are the head of the UOM.
There is no hope for this debate to ever end as long as the dogmatic decrees are not the infallible last word.
If I understand correctly the Cekadian people believe in the dogmas of the Church AND Theologians.
As much as someone is honest, the only way to consider Baptism of Desire is using the (false) teaching of theologians
The Cekadian argument to me is this:
"When the teaching of the theologians clashes with the teaching of the Church, both are to be considered truth, even if they are incompatible."
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
You cannot use this argument when those you are debating embrace the Cekadian mindset of what the UOM even is and that the Council is subject to the UOM - never mind that the pope who promulgated the dogmatic canons are the head of the UOM.
There is no hope for this debate to ever end as long as the dogmatic decrees are not the infallible last word.
If I understand correctly the Cekadian people believe in the dogmas of the Church AND Theologians.
As much as someone is honest, the only way to consider Baptism of Desire is using the (false) teaching of theologians
The Cekadian argument to me is this:
"When the teaching of the theologians clashes with the teaching of the Church, both are to be considered truth, even if they are incompatible."
Yes you are right, but there is a bit more. First, they use his concept of the UOM - 23 obscure theologians and 2 popular saints represent the entire UOM. Then they say they believe both, but they do so always at the expense of the dogmatic decrees.
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
You cannot use this argument when those you are debating embrace the Cekadian mindset of what the UOM even is and that the Council is subject to the UOM - never mind that the pope who promulgated the dogmatic canons are the head of the UOM.
There is no hope for this debate to ever end as long as the dogmatic decrees are not the infallible last word.
If I understand correctly the Cekadian people believe in the dogmas of the Church AND Theologians.
As much as someone is honest, the only way to consider Baptism of Desire is using the (false) teaching of theologians
The Cekadian argument to me is this:
"When the teaching of the theologians clashes with the teaching of the Church, both are to be considered truth, even if they are incompatible."
Yes you are right, but there is a bit more. First, they use his concept of the UOM - 23 obscure theologians and 2 popular saints represent the entire UOM. Then they say they believe both, but they do so always at the expense of the dogmatic decrees.
So if there's 100 theologians that agree with St Thomas that on the conception of the Virgin Mary they will believe that she both had and not had original sin at the same time because theologians are part of the UOM
-
But the Council of Trent says that ONLY Water Baptism removes original sin and actual sins.
You cannot use this argument when those you are debating embrace the Cekadian mindset of what the UOM even is and that the Council is subject to the UOM - never mind that the pope who promulgated the dogmatic canons are the head of the UOM.
There is no hope for this debate to ever end as long as the dogmatic decrees are not the infallible last word.
If I understand correctly the Cekadian people believe in the dogmas of the Church AND Theologians.
As much as someone is honest, the only way to consider Baptism of Desire is using the (false) teaching of theologians
The Cekadian argument to me is this:
"When the teaching of the theologians clashes with the teaching of the Church, both are to be considered truth, even if they are incompatible."
Yes you are right, but there is a bit more. First, they use his concept of the UOM - 23 obscure theologians and 2 popular saints represent the entire UOM. Then they say they believe both, but they do so always at the expense of the dogmatic decrees.
So if there's 100 theologians that agree with St Thomas that on the conception of the Virgin Mary they will believe that she both had and not had original sin at the same time because theologians are part of the UOM
Yes, that's about how I see it.
-
I thoroughly debunked the duBay quote to Nishant about a year ago. You actually have to know what duBay was teaching to understand it. But anything taken out of context in order to back up the BoD dogma myth.
It's not being used directly on BoD but on Feeney's concept of being justified without salvation upon death. You might conceive of a different way to dispute BoD, but you can't use Feeney's logic.
I understand how it's being used, but it doesn't apply. duBay was trying to teach something altogether different.
Their ideas rattailed insofar as separating justification from sanctifying grace.
??? "rattailed"
No, that's not what duBay was doing. Look up my old thread on this subject.
-
I thoroughly debunked the duBay quote to Nishant about a year ago. You actually have to know what duBay was teaching to understand it. But anything taken out of context in order to back up the BoD dogma myth.
It's not being used directly on BoD but on Feeney's concept of being justified without salvation upon death. You might conceive of a different way to dispute BoD, but you can't use Feeney's logic.
I understand how it's being used, but it doesn't apply. duBay was trying to teach something altogether different.
Their ideas rattailed insofar as separating justification from sanctifying grace.
??? "rattailed"
No, that's not what duBay was doing. Look up my old thread on this subject.
As in "dovetailed" but not in a good way.
I know what he was aiming for, but along the way justification was just a rubber stamp. Feeney did do something novel here, he created in effect two kinds of justification: one which does not save upon death, and one that does.
-
Stubborn, retract the term Cekadian.
I do not follow men, I follow Christ. Your implication otherwise is insulting.
Read Denziger, you know, the recognized SOURCES of Catholic dogma?
Take it up with Pio Nono:
1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
1722 22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith (30 [see n. 1683]).
-condemned-
-
So if there's 100 theologians that agree with St Thomas that on the conception of the Virgin Mary they will believe that she both had and not had original sin at the same time because theologians are part of the UOM
The infallible dogmatic decree on the matter closes out all competing views and opinions on the matter. The point here is that many times great theologians have expressed opposing viewpoints over the course of their own lives but because it hadn't been sorted out yet one way or the other by the Pope, we have to allow for some error from time to time. In St. Thomas' case, he might have been wrong on that point in the Summa, but he was correct earlier in his career and some say he changed his mind again shortly before he died but I can't verify that.
So, consistent with being the greatest of all theologians, even when he's wrong he's got the right idea somewhere else. This is not a fight about elevating theologians above or equal to the Pope, but it's about how to properly interpret those dogmatic decrees. This is where theologians come in to help the rest of us understand what exactly was being said.
I believe there are plenty of competing ideas surrounding the issue of BoD and BoB that would warrant having a more concise description of it, coupled with some anathemas to guard against the wrong ideas. I believe the main case for it has already been laid out in Trent, but as we've seen both camps claim it for their own and won't let go until we have a decent Pope make a new decree.
-
Gregory is not a Cekadian, is a Theolodian
Gregory follows Theologians. I follow the Church, the Successors of St. Peter.
Good luck with your religion of 25 theologians.
-
So if there's 100 theologians that agree with St Thomas that on the conception of the Virgin Mary they will believe that she both had and not had original sin at the same time because theologians are part of the UOM
The infallible dogmatic decree on the matter closes out all competing views and opinions on the matter. The point here is that many times great theologians have expressed opposing viewpoints over the course of their own lives but because it hadn't been sorted out yet one way or the other by the Pope, we have to allow for some error from time to time. In St. Thomas' case, he might have been wrong on that point in the Summa, but he was correct earlier in his career and some say he changed his mind again shortly before he died but I can't verify that.
So, consistent with being the greatest of all theologians, even when he's wrong he's got the right idea somewhere else. This is not a fight about elevating theologians above or equal to the Pope, but it's about how to properly interpret those dogmatic decrees. This is where theologians come in to help the rest of us understand what exactly was being said.
I believe there are plenty of competing ideas surrounding the issue of BoD and BoB that would warrant having a more concise description of it, coupled with some anathemas to guard against the wrong ideas. I believe the main case for it has already been laid out in Trent, but as we've seen both camps claim it for their own and won't let go until we have a decent Pope make a new decree.
Trent says that only Baptism of Water can clean Original Sin and actual sins
So everyone who is for Baptism of Desire will say "Yes, Trent says that BUT..." or "Yes, however we must interpret ......"
The Church never teaches Baptism of Desire
"Yes, BUT...."
The Church considers ONLY THE SACRAMENT OF WATER
"Yes, however..."
The Church don't teach "The desire of Baptism is sufficient"
"Yes, however..."
If we say we are Catholic, we must decide: Can the Church depend upon theological arguments?
-
Stubborn, retract the term Cekadian.
I do not follow men, I follow Christ. Your implication otherwise is insulting.
Read Denziger, you know, the recognized SOURCES of Catholic dogma?
Take it up with Pio Nono:
1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
1722 22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith (30 [see n. 1683]).
-condemned-
I'll see your Denzinger and raise you a Blessed Pope Pius IX:
....all Catholics are obliged in conscience in their writings to obey the dogmatic decrees of the Catholic Church, which is infallible.....We love to think that they have not intended to restrict this obligation of obedience, which is strictly binding on Catholic professors and writers, solely to the points defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith which all men must believe. And We are persuaded that they have not intended to declare that this perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they have recognized to be absolutely necessary to the true progress of science and the refutation of error....
So feel free to refute the errors your are debating with dogmatic decrees, as Bl. Pope Pius IX, head of the UOM teaches to be absolutely necessary to refute errors.
-
Trent says that only Baptism of Water can clean Original Sin and actual sins
So everyone who is for Baptism of Desire will say "Yes, Trent says that BUT..." or "Yes, however we must interpret ......"
The Church never teaches Baptism of Desire
"Yes, BUT...."
The Church considers ONLY THE SACRAMENT OF WATER
"Yes, however..."
The Church don't teach "The desire of Baptism is sufficient"
"Yes, however..."
If we say we are Catholic, we must decide: Can the Church depend upon theological arguments?
You must be new here! We all claim Trent. It's not a matter of "yes, but" it's a matter of "and/or."
Here's what Trent has to say on the subject:
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
What Trent did not do is go into detail about the "voto." This is where the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, the writings of various theologians, help us to understand it. They never contradict the council! This is where clarification by another decree would be most helpful.
However, if "aut" means "and", then it completely changes the meaning of the decree and does not provide for BoD/BoB. This must be the position of those who wish to dispute it. The only problem is, you have to ignore all the subsequent (heretical!) "opinions" of sainted theologians and Popes who can't very well be called ignorant of these matters. Indeed, some even had a part in the Council of Trent itself!
The amount of evidence that suggests you are wrong about your interpretation of what the Council says about this is so great that you have to spend more time and energy having to discredit each of these sources, without treating them like heretics the way everyone else who holds to this teaching is treated. It simply can't be done without employing double standards, large amounts of willful ignorance, and loads of hypocrisy.
-
I do not follow men, I follow Christ.
1AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. 8The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
-
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
That doesn't work.
You can try and dispute this:
And I've pointed out that Trent cited this very passage as an amplification of the "without water or the desire" passage.
So either Trent is saying that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it (which Trent attributed to the work of the Holy Ghost), for unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit ...
Or else Trent is directly contradicting Our Lord ... if taken the way the BoDers would have it understood, as an EITHER ... OR.
Also, if it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is also patently false.
Exactly. Well said.
-
I do not follow men, I follow Christ.
1AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. 8The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
The same way we "twist" the Lord's words when we say not all people who live to receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist can get to Heaven as well.
John 6:54 (Douay-Rheims)
Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
BTW, that's a big qualm the "Orthodox" have with us Latins because we don't administer the Holy Eucharist at the same time that we Baptize...
-
I do not follow men, I follow Christ.
1AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. 8The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
The same way we "twist" the Lord's words when we say not all people who live to receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist can get to Heaven as well.
John 6:54 (Douay-Rheims)
Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
BTW, that's a big qualm the "Orthodox" have with us Latins because we don't administer the Holy Eucharist at the same time that we Baptize...
The words of Our Lord in John 6:54 are not taken literally by the Church because infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. On the other hand, John 3:5 is to be taken literally. Look at the two passages:
John 6:54 : “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
John 3:5 : "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Notice how in the first passage Our Lord addresses directly the people hearing Him. His words are intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. These people He was speaking to could eventually receive the Eucharist, and they had to in order to be saved. This still applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.
Now, show me a dogmatic canon where the Holy Eucharist is said to be absolutely necessary for salvation and optional to no one.
-
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
That doesn't work.
You can try and dispute this:
And I've pointed out that Trent cited this very passage as an amplification of the "without water or the desire" passage.
So either Trent is saying that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it (which Trent attributed to the work of the Holy Ghost), for unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit ...
Or else Trent is directly contradicting Our Lord ... if taken the way the BoDers would have it understood, as an EITHER ... OR.
Also, if it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is also patently false.
I will do just that. "Either...or" could never apply in the first place since you need two auts for that. No, I just mean "or". It's not true that it has to be "and" here: the single "aut" was frequently used in disjunctive sentences as a short way of saying "or at least".
-
I do not follow men, I follow Christ.
1AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. 8The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
The same way we "twist" the Lord's words when we say not all people who live to receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist can get to Heaven as well.
John 6:54 (Douay-Rheims)
Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
BTW, that's a big qualm the "Orthodox" have with us Latins because we don't administer the Holy Eucharist at the same time that we Baptize...
The words of Our Lord in John 6:54 are not taken literally by the Church because infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. On the other hand, John 3:5 is to be taken literally. Look at the two passages:
John 6:54 : “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
John 3:5 : "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Notice how in the first passage Our Lord addresses directly the people hearing Him. His words are intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. These people He was speaking to could eventually receive the Eucharist, and they had to in order to be saved. This still applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.
Now, show me a dogmatic canon where the Holy Eucharist is said to be absolutely necessary for salvation and optional to no one.
No, you're absolutely right about the Eucharist. The point was that for the vast majority of us, this would not have been understood unless the Church directed us to the right interpretation. Why on Earth can't you do the same for Baptism? No it's not exactly the same as the Holy Eucharist, but simply because it isn't as apparent to you does not give you the right to bypass the teaching of perfectly valid (and may I add supreme) authorities on the matter. Their word may not carry the same weight outside of an official decree, but you are still bound to accept it! They certainly could not contradict what was dogma and escape the label of heretic by a pre-VII church.
It is very possible to call your theological shots for so long that you really begin to lose your Sensus Catholicus. Please, come away from this dead end!
-
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
That doesn't work.
You can try and dispute this:
And I've pointed out that Trent cited this very passage as an amplification of the "without water or the desire" passage.
So either Trent is saying that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it (which Trent attributed to the work of the Holy Ghost), for unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit ...
Or else Trent is directly contradicting Our Lord ... if taken the way the BoDers would have it understood, as an EITHER ... OR.
Also, if it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is also patently false.
I will do just that. "Either...or" could never apply in the first place since you need two auts for that. No, I just mean "or". It's not true that it has to be "and" here: the single "aut" was frequently used in disjunctive sentences as a short way of saying "or at least".
BODers use this canon as you do, as a proof that Trent "defined" a BOD. Like you, the BODers actually use only a few words out the whole of this particular canon and never read or cannot comprehend the entire canon. They certainly take those few words completely out of context, which then renders the entire canon meaningless.
But, if they actually took the time to read the entire canon, they would understand that it starts out by saying; "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;".......let him be anathema. This of course destroys a BOD in it's tracks just the same as it would destroy a Holy Orders of Desire and a Confirmation of Desire and etc.
FYI, this canon is "On the Sacraments In General", the BODers use it as their subterfuge against the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism.
So the first part of the canon decrees the sacraments are necessary for salvation. BOD is not a sacrament. A BOD is supposedly only a desire for the sacrament. Because the sacrament itself is wholly replaced with a supposed desire for it, the "desire" is therefore rightly said to be, "the absence of the sacrament" and per Trent, can save no one.
However, there is a disparity even taking this avenue because if the canon teaches what the BODers say, then the BODers need to explain how one can desire that which they do not even know exists. Because the catechism teaching on a BOD (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=319&num=1) says; "one receives the baptism of desire even though he has never even heard of the existence of the sacrament of baptism." This being the case, Trent could not mean that one must at least desire the sacrament at all because one cannot desire that which one does not even know exists.
So hopefully you see better now the tangled web of confusion and deceit and the lengths BODers employ in their quest to make Trent say that "the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation".
-
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
That doesn't work.
It means nothing that the word is translate as "or". That is in fact the correct translation of the Latin aut. But, just as in English, the use of "or" after a negative is ambiguous.
"I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball." Does this mean that I can play if I have one or the other or that I need both in order to play? If you know nothing about baseball, then you have no idea what this means taken in isolation. If I have a bat but not a ball, can I play? Or do I need both? But if the phrase reads, "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since John said that I need a bat and a ball to play baseball." then the context immediately disambiguates the phrase.
Trent teaches that justification cannot happen "without Baptism or the votum". Again, does this mean that if either is missing, there's no justification, or only if both are missing? Not clear. Except IMMEDIATELY after this sentence, Trent cites Our Lord about how only those can be saved who have been baptized in water AND the Holy Spirit. For Baptism, Trent uses the term "lavacrum", or "washing". This term is clearly used to equate Baptism with Our Lord's "water" in the subsequent passage, and that the votum corresponds to the "Holy Spirit" (Trent had just spent a couple paragraphs describing how the Holy Spirit works in the soul to create the proper dispositions (aka votum) for the Sacrament.
So, if you can convince me that "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since John said that I need a bat and a ball to play baseball." actually means that I can play baseball if I have either a bat or a ball, so too you'll convince me that Trent was teaching that justification can happen without the Sacrament of Baptism. Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum, for Our Lord teaches one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. So Trent teaches that we can be justified with either the water or the votum since Our Lord taught that we need both water and the Holy Spirit. Hogwash.
In fact, Trent was absolutely adamant that justification CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT BAPTISM; it's one of the core dogmas in Trent. So here we have Trent dogmatically teaching the opposite? That justification can happen "without" it? That's absurd.
Trent's intention was to teach the relationship between ex opere operato grace and ex opere operantis free will in the Sacraments. In fact, Trent in the Canons condemns the proposition that the Sacraments can confer grace without that cooperation of will (related to the word votum). That's exactly what Trent was teaching in this alleged "BoD" passage.
There are other problems. This would reduce "Baptism of Blood" to Baptism of Desire, whereas subsequent theologians such as St. Alphonsus stated that BoB had a quasi-ex-opere-operato effect and functioned differently. Trent would then reject Baptism of Blood as a separate thing. Why didn't Trent teaching Baptism of Blood here? In fact, many Church Fathers believed in BoB but openly rejected BoD. So now Trent inverts that here?
-
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
That doesn't work.
It means nothing that the word is translate as "or". That is in fact the correct translation of the Latin aut. But, just as in English, the use of "or" after a negative is ambiguous.
"I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball." Does this mean that I can play if I have one or the other or that I need both in order to play? If you know nothing about baseball, then you have no idea what this means taken in isolation. If I have a bat but not a ball, can I play? Or do I need both? But if the phrase reads, "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since John said that I need a bat and a ball to play baseball." then the context immediately disambiguates the phrase.
Trent teaches that justification cannot happen "without Baptism or the votum". Again, does this mean that if either is missing, there's no justification, or only if both are missing? Not clear. Except IMMEDIATELY after this sentence, Trent cites Our Lord about how only those can be saved who have been baptized in water AND the Holy Spirit. For Baptism, Trent uses the term "lavacrum", or "washing". This term is clearly used to equate Baptism with Our Lord's "water" in the subsequent passage, and that the votum corresponds to the "Holy Spirit" (Trent had just spent a couple paragraphs describing how the Holy Spirit works in the soul to create the proper dispositions (aka votum) for the Sacrament.
So, if you can convince me that "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since John said that I need a bat and a ball to play baseball." actually means that I can play baseball if I have either a bat or a ball, so too you'll convince me that Trent was teaching that justification can happen without the Sacrament of Baptism. Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum, for Our Lord teaches one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. So Trent teaches that we can be justified with either the water or the votum since Our Lord taught that we need both water and the Holy Spirit. Hogwash.
In fact, Trent was absolutely adamant that justification CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT BAPTISM; it's one of the core dogmas in Trent. So here we have Trent dogmatically teaching the opposite? That justification can happen "without" it? That's absurd.
Trent's intention was to teach the relationship between ex opere operato grace and ex opere operantis free will in the Sacraments. In fact, Trent in the Canons condemns the proposition that the Sacraments can confer grace without that cooperation of will (related to the word votum). That's exactly what Trent was teaching in this alleged "BoD" passage.
There are other problems. This would reduce "Baptism of Blood" to Baptism of Desire, whereas subsequent theologians such as St. Alphonsus stated that BoB had a quasi-ex-opere-operato effect and functioned differently. Trent would then reject Baptism of Blood as a separate thing. Why didn't Trent teaching Baptism of Blood here? In fact, many Church Fathers believed in BoB but openly rejected BoD. So now Trent inverts that here?
That's a nice personal interpretation.
Again, what do the saints say about your interpretation? Do the doctors of the Church who lived during and immediately after Trent side with your interpretation? Who are they?
-
You might not be aware that in Latin, "aut" can mean "or" or "and" depending on the context. This couldn't be more critical to the discussion at hand. If it means "or" then "a desire for it (Baptism)" can produce the "effects" of Baptism, which is the sanctifying grace of Baptism. In every single official English translation of the Council of Trent, you will find it translated as "or."
That doesn't work.
It means nothing that the word is translate as "or". That is in fact the correct translation of the Latin aut. But, just as in English, the use of "or" after a negative is ambiguous.
"I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball." Does this mean that I can play if I have one or the other or that I need both in order to play? If you know nothing about baseball, then you have no idea what this means taken in isolation. If I have a bat but not a ball, can I play? Or do I need both? But if the phrase reads, "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since John said that I need a bat and a ball to play baseball." then the context immediately disambiguates the phrase.
Trent teaches that justification cannot happen "without Baptism or the votum". Again, does this mean that if either is missing, there's no justification, or only if both are missing? Not clear. Except IMMEDIATELY after this sentence, Trent cites Our Lord about how only those can be saved who have been baptized in water AND the Holy Spirit. For Baptism, Trent uses the term "lavacrum", or "washing". This term is clearly used to equate Baptism with Our Lord's "water" in the subsequent passage, and that the votum corresponds to the "Holy Spirit" (Trent had just spent a couple paragraphs describing how the Holy Spirit works in the soul to create the proper dispositions (aka votum) for the Sacrament.
So, if you can convince me that "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since John said that I need a bat and a ball to play baseball." actually means that I can play baseball if I have either a bat or a ball, so too you'll convince me that Trent was teaching that justification can happen without the Sacrament of Baptism. Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum, for Our Lord teaches one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. So Trent teaches that we can be justified with either the water or the votum since Our Lord taught that we need both water and the Holy Spirit. Hogwash.
In fact, Trent was absolutely adamant that justification CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT BAPTISM; it's one of the core dogmas in Trent. So here we have Trent dogmatically teaching the opposite? That justification can happen "without" it? That's absurd.
Trent's intention was to teach the relationship between ex opere operato grace and ex opere operantis free will in the Sacraments. In fact, Trent in the Canons condemns the proposition that the Sacraments can confer grace without that cooperation of will (related to the word votum). That's exactly what Trent was teaching in this alleged "BoD" passage.
There are other problems. This would reduce "Baptism of Blood" to Baptism of Desire, whereas subsequent theologians such as St. Alphonsus stated that BoB had a quasi-ex-opere-operato effect and functioned differently. Trent would then reject Baptism of Blood as a separate thing. Why didn't Trent teaching Baptism of Blood here? In fact, many Church Fathers believed in BoB but openly rejected BoD. So now Trent inverts that here?
That's a nice personal interpretation.
Again, what do the saints say about your interpretation? Do the doctors of the Church who lived during and immediately after Trent side with your interpretation? Who are they?
I'd be interested to know what they said about the first part of the canon.
Since that canon is not even speaking about the sacrament of baptism, I'd also like to know what they say about "or the desire thereof" in regards to all the other sacraments.
-
That's a nice personal interpretation.
Again, what do the saints say about your interpretation? Do the doctors of the Church who lived during and immediately after Trent side with your interpretation? Who are they?
Nice response.
No one has been able to refute this "interpretation", so that's all I ever get.
I used to believe in BoD for catechumens ... mostly because I thought that Trent taught it. Then one day I went and read the entire Treatise on Justification in the original Latin and I was surprised to find that Trent clearly has no intention of teaching BoD.
I believe that St. Alphonsus got this wrong and stand by my interpretation of Trent until someone can refute it. There's no way to construe the language, in context, as saying anything other than how I interpret it.
-
That's a nice personal interpretation.
Again, what do the saints say about your interpretation? Do the doctors of the Church who lived during and immediately after Trent side with your interpretation? Who are they?
Jesus Christ gave the Church the authority to teach all nations. He did not give that power to anyone else; not even to all the saints, doctors and theologians combined. It is the Church, and the Church alone that is the pillar and ground of truth, and she alone has the right to demand ascent from the faithful to her teachings.
I hear lots of objections to the necessity of baptism that center around the idea that the more saints/theologians one (appears) to have on one's side, the "truer" one's position is. Rubbish.
I don't care how many saints/doctors/theologians one can drudge up to "prove" a particular position. If it is contrary to the clear definitions of the Church, the question is settled.
Your job is to show such positions are not contrary to the definitions of Trent (note: just because St. A, B or C didn't seem to think so is irrelevant, and proves nothing). Until then, the demand that we hold your view because X number of saints held it is worthless.
The central question is this: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
-
Jesus Christ gave the Church the authority to teach all nations. He did not give that power to anyone else; not even to all the saints, doctors and theologians combined. It is the Church, and the Church alone that is the pillar and ground of truth, and she alone has the right to demand ascent from the faithful to her teachings.
I hear lots of objections to the necessity of baptism that center around the idea that the more saints/theologians one (appears) to have on one's side, the "truer" one's position is. Rubbish.
I don't care how many saints/doctors/theologians one can drudge up to "prove" a particular position. If it is contrary to the clear definitions of the Church, the question is settled.
Your job is to show such positions are not contrary to the definitions of Trent (note: just because St. A, B or C didn't seem to think so is irrelevant, and proves nothing). Until then, the demand that we hold your view because X number of saints held it isworthless.
The central question is this: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
* * * * * * * * * *
:applause:
-
That's a nice personal interpretation.
Again, what do the saints say about your interpretation? Do the doctors of the Church who lived during and immediately after Trent side with your interpretation? Who are they?
Nice response.
No one has been able to refute this "interpretation", so that's all I ever get.
I used to believe in BoD for catechumens ... mostly because I thought that Trent taught it. Then one day I went and read the entire Treatise on Justification in the original Latin and I was surprised to find that Trent clearly has no intention of teaching BoD.
I believe that St. Alphonsus got this wrong and stand by my interpretation of Trent until someone can refute it. There's no way to construe the language, in context, as saying anything other than how I interpret it.
So you made this decision completely on your own without subjecting your intellect to the overwhelming teaching of the saints and theologians?
That isn't safe.
-
Jesus Christ gave the Church the authority to teach all nations. He did not give that power to anyone else; not even to all the saints, doctors and theologians combined. It is the Church, and the Church alone that is the pillar and ground of truth, and she alone has the right to demand ascent from the faithful to her teachings.
I hear lots of objections to the necessity of baptism that center around the idea that the more saints/theologians one (appears) to have on one's side, the "truer" one's position is. Rubbish.
I don't care how many saints/doctors/theologians one can drudge up to "prove" a particular position. If it is contrary to the clear definitions of the Church, the question is settled.
Your job is to show such positions are not contrary to the definitions of Trent (note: just because St. A, B or C didn't seem to think so is irrelevant, and proves nothing). Until then, the demand that we hold your view because X number of saints held it isworthless.
The central question is this: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
* * * * * * * * * *
:applause:
Can a man have life within him without partaking of the Eucharist?
-
He can't have the Eucharist without first being baptized.
First things first.
-
I do not follow men, I follow Christ.
1AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. 8The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
The same way we "twist" the Lord's words when we say not all people who live to receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist can get to Heaven as well.
John 6:54 (Douay-Rheims)
Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
BTW, that's a big qualm the "Orthodox" have with us Latins because we don't administer the Holy Eucharist at the same time that we Baptize...
The words of Our Lord in John 6:54 are not taken literally by the Church because infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. On the other hand, John 3:5 is to be taken literally. Look at the two passages:
John 6:54 : “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
John 3:5 : "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Notice how in the first passage Our Lord addresses directly the people hearing Him. His words are intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. These people He was speaking to could eventually receive the Eucharist, and they had to in order to be saved. This still applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.
Now, show me a dogmatic canon where the Holy Eucharist is said to be absolutely necessary for salvation and optional to no one.
No, you're absolutely right about the Eucharist. The point was that for the vast majority of us, this would not have been understood unless the Church directed us to the right interpretation. Why on Earth can't you do the same for Baptism? No it's not exactly the same as the Holy Eucharist, but simply because it isn't as apparent to you does not give you the right to bypass the teaching of perfectly valid (and may I add supreme) authorities on the matter. Their word may not carry the same weight outside of an official decree, but you are still bound to accept it! They certainly could not contradict what was dogma and escape the label of heretic by a pre-VII church.
It is very possible to call your theological shots for so long that you really begin to lose your Sensus Catholicus. Please, come away from this dead end!
The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the Ecuмenical Councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin suffices for damnation in Hell. It is only through Sacramental Baptism this original sin is remitted. Does the Holy Eucharist remit original sin, and actual? No, and no one enters Heaven with the stain of original sin. Likewise, nobody can receive the Holy Eucharist if they have not received sacramental Baptism. There is not a single dogmatic canon which teaches that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation and optional to no one. There is indeed for Baptism, which is the entrance to true life, life in Christ.
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
-
Can a man have life within him without partaking of the Eucharist?
Answer my question first and I'll answer yours.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Yes or no.
-
Can a man have life within him without partaking of the Eucharist?
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life. How often this precept urges outside the danger of death it is not easy to say, but many hold that the Church has practically determined the Divine precept by the law of the Fourth Council of Lateran (c.xxi) confirmed by Trent, which obliges the faithful to receive Communion once each year within Paschal Time.
It's morally necessary and by necessity of precept.
Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means. Now answer the question put to you and stop dodging.
-
So you made this decision completely on your own without subjecting your intellect to the overwhelming teaching of the saints and theologians?
That isn't safe.
Again, refute my interpretation. I'm not interested in your perception of "safety". Should be very simple for you to do if I'm wrong. Abelard rejected an opinion that had been universal consensus for nearly 800 years after the time of St. Augustine, and, guess what, the Church ended up adopting his position against that of St. Augustine. Thank goodness that he decided to seek the truth rather than to play if safe.
So let's put aside "safety"; please refute my interpretation of this passage in Trent. It's really quite unassailable and no on has yet even attempted to do it.
-
So you made this decision completely on your own without subjecting your intellect to the overwhelming teaching of the saints and theologians?
That isn't safe.
Again, refute my interpretation. I'm not interested in your perception of "safety". Should be very simple for you to do if I'm wrong. Abelard rejected an opinion that had been universal consensus for nearly 800 years after the time of St. Augustine, and, guess what, the Church ended up adopting his position against that of St. Augustine. Thank goodness that he decided to seek the truth rather than to play if safe.
So let's put aside "safety"; please refute my interpretation of this passage in Trent. It's really quite unassailable and no on has yet even attempted to do it.
You saw the feeble attempt made by Croixalist, it was a futile attempt to confuse what is clear. That is the extent of refuting what you wrote that you can expect.
And I still want to see one of the BODers explain why it is they use that canon for only the sacrament of Baptism when that canon is clearly not speaking about baptism exclusively, but it is speaking about ALL the sacraments.
So your point made in regards to the whole "either or" fact, necessarily applies to all the sacraments for the simple reason that the canon was decreeing about all the sacraments.
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.
It is an amazing thing how BODers confuse dogmatic decrees.
-
It is an amazing thing how BODers confuse dogmatic decrees.
And it's amazing how they confuse what is dogma with what isn't.
.
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
Congratulations! You would make Archbishop Cushing (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) proud!
Have you ever considered creating a website to defend the necessity of the sacraments? Would that even be possible for you to do?
One thing, in the interest of honesty PaulFC, you should remove The Letter to +Cushing from your website because the 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”
Fr. Feeney did not publish his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to use that 1949 letter to condemn Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.
One other thing, per that letter, Fr. Feeney went from being incorporated into the Church actually as a member, to actually being united to her by desire and longing, although explicitly rather than implicitly.
Also worth noting, Fr. Feeney received the sacrament of Extreme Unction prior to his death, which means he is not only to be counted among the faithful departed according to the teachings of the Church - but though that sacrament, there is every possibility that he bypassed purgatory completely and went straight into heaven.
Now THAT is something we can toast to - don't you agree? :cheers:
-
That's a nice personal interpretation.
Again, what do the saints say about your interpretation? Do the doctors of the Church who lived during and immediately after Trent side with your interpretation? Who are they?
Nice response.
No one has been able to refute this "interpretation", so that's all I ever get.
I used to believe in BoD for catechumens ... mostly because I thought that Trent taught it. Then one day I went and read the entire Treatise on Justification in the original Latin and I was surprised to find that Trent clearly has no intention of teaching BoD.
I believe that St. Alphonsus got this wrong and stand by my interpretation of Trent until someone can refute it. There's no way to construe the language, in context, as saying anything other than how I interpret it.
So you made this decision completely on your own without subjecting your intellect to the overwhelming teaching of the saints and theologians?
That isn't safe.
Precisely. The Council of Trent has become for Feeneyites what the Bible became for Protestants. If only everybody read it on their own, they'd see the truth! The Council teaches itself! It's obvious what it taught. The Catechism of Trent teaches a different interpretation? Clearly they must not have read the Council docuмents!
You gotta love their ability to avoid assigning what they clearly believe as heresy to the Council fathers Sts. Borromeo and Pius V, in order not to look as fringe as they truly are.
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
Why all the down thumbs guys? Are you upset at the success of the website? Nearly 2 years online and not a word from the Dimonds is a great measure of success wouldn't you say?
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
Why all the down thumbs guys? Are you upset at the success of the website? Nearly 2 years online and not a word from the Dimonds is a great measure of success wouldn't you say?
Never underestimate the self-satisfaction of the Dimond bros. :detective:
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
Why all the down thumbs guys? Are you upset at the success of the website? Nearly 2 years online and not a word from the Dimonds is a great measure of success wouldn't you say?
I would say +Cushing would agree that's a success.
Funny you mention two years of a BOD.
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
This is very interesting. Stubborn makes a challenge, but who will be the judge as to whether the person who takes that challenge succeeds?
The answer, of course, is that Stubborn will be the sole judge.
The objective of the challenge would be - to convince Stubborn that it is "Church teaching" that tells us baptism of desire is an intrinsic part of the Sacrament of baptism and, therefore, included in that necessity of means for salvation.
This is where it gets especially interesting. To prove to anyone that something is "Church teaching" we need to use Catholic sources that both mutually accept, otherwise proving something would be futile, and the challenge itself would be in vain.
So, this is what Stubborn's challenge really boils down to...
...he does not accept all of the usual Catholic sources in the first place, so the challenge really is to make him see that, because, "first things first".
So, I will take his challenge, and ask Stubborn a direct question. The Vatican Council of 1870 taught us:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgement or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
Tell us, what doctrines do you believe with "divine and Catholic faith" which were NOT taught by the solemn magisterium. Please list them to show us that you understand the quote from the General Council.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
Where's the thread? Post a link because I can't find it.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
Where's the thread? Post a link because I can't find it.
You just hacked my sentence in half and pretended I said something I did not! Is that the way you work?
-
I presented the challenge quite clearly and it's not like it's something new - it's been out there for two years.
You said "I will take the challenge" - so I asked, "where's the thread?" By saying you will take the challenge, you are supposed to start a thread on the necessity of any one of the sacraments, then champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread. That's what "I will take the challenge" means. What is it exactly that you do not understand here?
Why do you say you will take the challenge, then not take the challenge, then ask me if that's the way I work?
If you do not take the challenge, then you're just another BODer who finds it an absolute impossibility to defend the necessity of the sacraments.
Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is one challenge I found from Jan 2014, a month or two after I made the initial challenge.
Below is the quote which perhaps better explains why I made the challenge in the first place, the reasons are the same today as they were two years ago - best of luck to you.........
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
-
I presented the challenge quite clearly and it's not like it's something new - it's been out there for two years.
You said "I will take the challenge" - so I asked, "where's the thread?" By saying you will take the challenge, you are supposed to start a thread on the necessity of any one of the sacraments, then champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread. That's what "I will take the challenge" means. What is it exactly that you do not understand here?
Why do you say you will take the challenge, then not take the challenge, then ask me if that's the way I work?
If you do not take the challenge, then you're just another BODer who finds it an absolute impossibility to defend the necessity of the sacraments.
Here (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is one challenge I found from Jan 2014, a month or two after I made the initial challenge.
Below is the quote which perhaps better explains why I made the challenge in the first place, the reasons are the same today as they were two years ago - best of luck to you.........
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
Yup, that's the way you work!
I will play your game and start a new thread, as you suggested.
-
I presented the challenge quite clearly and it's not like it's something new - it's been out there for two years.
You said "I will take the challenge" - so I asked, "where's the thread?" By saying you will take the challenge, you are supposed to start a thread on the necessity of any one of the sacraments, then champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread. That's what "I will take the challenge" means. What is it exactly that you do not understand here?
Why do you say you will take the challenge, then not take the challenge, then ask me if that's the way I work?
If you do not take the challenge, then you're just another BODer who finds it an absolute impossibility to defend the necessity of the sacraments.
Here (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is one challenge I found from Jan 2014, a month or two after I made the initial challenge.
Below is the quote which perhaps better explains why I made the challenge in the first place, the reasons are the same today as they were two years ago - best of luck to you.........
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
Yup, that's the way you work!
I will play your game and start a new thread, as you suggested.
Excellent! - I will be one of those who helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments!
-
I presented the challenge quite clearly and it's not like it's something new - it's been out there for two years.
You said "I will take the challenge" - so I asked, "where's the thread?" By saying you will take the challenge, you are supposed to start a thread on the necessity of any one of the sacraments, then champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread. That's what "I will take the challenge" means. What is it exactly that you do not understand here?
Why do you say you will take the challenge, then not take the challenge, then ask me if that's the way I work?
If you do not take the challenge, then you're just another BODer who finds it an absolute impossibility to defend the necessity of the sacraments.
Here (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is one challenge I found from Jan 2014, a month or two after I made the initial challenge.
Below is the quote which perhaps better explains why I made the challenge in the first place, the reasons are the same today as they were two years ago - best of luck to you.........
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
Yup, that's the way you work!
I will play your game and start a new thread, as you suggested.
Excellent! - I will be one of those who helps you defend the necessity of the sacraments!
Correction: you will be one who "thinks" he is helping.
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
Congratulations! You would make Archbishop Cushing (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) proud!
Have you ever considered creating a website to defend the necessity of the sacraments? Would that even be possible for you to do?
One thing, in the interest of honesty PaulFC, you should remove The Letter to +Cushing from your website because the 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”
Fr. Feeney did not publish his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to use that 1949 letter to condemn Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.
One other thing, per that letter, Fr. Feeney went from being incorporated into the Church actually as a member, to actually being united to her by desire and longing, although explicitly rather than implicitly.
Also worth noting, Fr. Feeney received the sacrament of Extreme Unction prior to his death, which means he is not only to be counted among the faithful departed according to the teachings of the Church - but though that sacrament, there is every possibility that he bypassed purgatory completely and went straight into heaven.
Now THAT is something we can toast to - don't you agree? :cheers:
Hey Paul, did you miss my post? Because you posted here since I wrote that, it's obvious that you've been on the computer - why not spend 4 minutes and do the right thing and remove all references to that letter from your BOD website?
I asked that in the interest of honesty that you remove all references to The Letter, you know, that letter commonly referred to as "The Protocol Letter of 1949" to +Cushing.
The reason I gave is because.........
Fr. Feeney did not publish his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to use that 1949 letter to condemn Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.
I don't actually expect you to comment on anything in my post or to remove The Letter, but at least your knowledge of the truth on the matter grew. It will be telling to see what you will do with it.
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive a year and a half later! FYI - I run the website baptismofdesire.com and thought I would stop by and update you on the website.
The site still gets roughly 4000 visits per month, yet the Feeneyites have basically thrown in the towel; I've only had 2 minor attempts all year this year at challenging the website. Feeneyism is officially dead, thank God.
Also interesting to note, I was contacted by Bishop Webster last May, and he suggested having a discussion. I agreed and suggested that he read through my homepage first so he could know my arguments before we got started. He was never heard from again, even after I have e-mailed him several times this year. Kind of like the Dimonds who have fallen silent for years since the site was established.
Goodbye to the Feeneyism heresy!
:cheers:
Congratulations! You would make Archbishop Cushing (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) proud!
Have you ever considered creating a website to defend the necessity of the sacraments? Would that even be possible for you to do?
One thing, in the interest of honesty PaulFC, you should remove The Letter to +Cushing from your website because the 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.”
Fr. Feeney did not publish his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to use that 1949 letter to condemn Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.
One other thing, per that letter, Fr. Feeney went from being incorporated into the Church actually as a member, to actually being united to her by desire and longing, although explicitly rather than implicitly.
Also worth noting, Fr. Feeney received the sacrament of Extreme Unction prior to his death, which means he is not only to be counted among the faithful departed according to the teachings of the Church - but though that sacrament, there is every possibility that he bypassed purgatory completely and went straight into heaven.
Now THAT is something we can toast to - don't you agree? :cheers:
Hey Paul, did you miss my post? Because you posted here since I wrote that, it's obvious that you've been on the computer - why not spend 4 minutes and do the right thing and remove all references to that letter from your BOD website?
I asked that in the interest of honesty that you remove all references to The Letter, you know, that letter commonly referred to as "The Protocol Letter of 1949" to +Cushing.
The reason I gave is because.........
Fr. Feeney did not publish his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to use that 1949 letter to condemn Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.
I don't actually expect you to comment on anything in my post or to remove The Letter, but at least your knowledge of the truth on the matter grew. It will be telling to see what you will do with it.
It is not an error. Fr. Feeney was teaching, preaching and publishing his errors on a local public scale near Boston, and that is why the letter was written.
-
It is not an error. Fr. Feeney was teaching, preaching and publishing his errors on a local public scale near Boston, and that is why the letter was written.
Yes, I'm afraid it is an error. Instead of blindly flapping your jowls, look it up and prove he was preaching against a BOD before 1949.
It turns out that I foolishly thought that one who was so proud of his accomplishment in creating that website about an anti-sacrament would be equally proud to publish accurate information.
As I said, it is all a matter of honesty.
-
It is not an error. Fr. Feeney was teaching, preaching and publishing his errors on a local public scale near Boston, and that is why the letter was written.
Yes, I'm afraid it is an error. Instead of blindly flapping your jowls, look it up and prove he was preaching against a BOD before 1949.
It turns out that I foolishly thought that one who was so proud of his accomplishment in creating that website about an anti-sacrament would be equally proud to publish accurate information.
As I said, it is all a matter of honesty.
So, what you are claiming then, is that the official "doctrinal" statement of the Saint Benedict Center as published after 1950 in "Gate of Heaven" by Catherine Goddard Clarke, was not what the SBC was preaching, teaching and publishing before the 1949 letter?
-
The Letter cannot rightfully be used to condemn Fr. Feeney for anything except for disobedience to his liberal Archbishop, Cushing - if you ever actually read The Letter, you would know this. Not a word about a BOD is even found anywhere in The Letter.
Do you know of Archbishop Cushing of Boston at all?
Here, (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) it'll only take a minute to read a little about the man who was Fr.'s superior - and see if you can figure out why he had Fr. Feeney silenced and the reason he had him excommunicated. See if you can figure that out.
-
The Letter cannot rightfully be used to condemn Fr. Feeney for anything except for disobedience to his liberal Archbishop, Cushing - if you ever actually read The Letter, you would know this. Not a word about a BOD is even found anywhere in The Letter.
Yes, I have actually read the letter, and it was doctrinal because Fr. Feeney preached in opposition to the doctrinal content of the letter.
-
The Letter cannot rightfully be used to condemn Fr. Feeney for anything except for disobedience to his liberal Archbishop, Cushing - if you ever actually read The Letter, you would know this. Not a word about a BOD is even found anywhere in The Letter.
Do you know of Archbishop Cushing of Boston at all?
Here, (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) it'll only take a minute to read a little about the man who was Fr.'s superior - and see if you can figure out why he had Fr. Feeney silenced and the reason he had him excommunicated. See if you can figure that out.
Stubborn,
The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 clearly states,
"Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church."
Your argument is over.
-
The Letter cannot rightfully be used to condemn Fr. Feeney for anything except for disobedience to his liberal Archbishop, Cushing - if you ever actually read The Letter, you would know this. Not a word about a BOD is even found anywhere in The Letter.
Do you know of Archbishop Cushing of Boston at all?
Here, (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) it'll only take a minute to read a little about the man who was Fr.'s superior - and see if you can figure out why he had Fr. Feeney silenced and the reason he had him excommunicated. See if you can figure that out.
Stubborn,
The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 clearly states,
"Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church."
Your argument is over.
With all due respect - are you blind? Did you even read the link in my quote? What kind of catechetical instruction do you think was proposed by his lawful authorities when his superior believed teaching the foundational dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.”? Is that what you think too?
Do you actually believe teaching EENS is teaching ideas leading to bigotry?
And again, per The Letter, Fr. Feeney went from being incorporated into the Church actually as a member, to actually being united to her by desire and longing, although explicitly rather than implicitly.
So that's how much The Letter is worth.
-
The Letter cannot rightfully be used to condemn Fr. Feeney for anything except for disobedience to his liberal Archbishop, Cushing - if you ever actually read The Letter, you would know this. Not a word about a BOD is even found anywhere in The Letter.
Do you know of Archbishop Cushing of Boston at all?
Here, (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) it'll only take a minute to read a little about the man who was Fr.'s superior - and see if you can figure out why he had Fr. Feeney silenced and the reason he had him excommunicated. See if you can figure that out.
Stubborn,
The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 clearly states,
"Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church."
Your argument is over.
Paul FC,
Are you so very quick to condemn a Lumen Gentium's passage from Vatican II Council as actually heretical but hesitate to admit the possibility of error in the fallible Letter of the Holy Office of 1949?
This is the passage from Lumen Gentium you would quickly accuse as heretical :
"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'
This Vatican II Council passage has a its footnote nothing less than the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston". (*(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72)
Yet you approve of one, while dismiss the other. Double standard.
Interesting to note, in Lumen Gentium the phrase "implicit desire" (votum implicitum) which was so objectionable to Fr. Feeney was dropped.
-
The Letter cannot rightfully be used to condemn Fr. Feeney for anything except for disobedience to his liberal Archbishop, Cushing - if you ever actually read The Letter, you would know this. Not a word about a BOD is even found anywhere in The Letter.
Do you know of Archbishop Cushing of Boston at all?
Here, (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=5#p3) it'll only take a minute to read a little about the man who was Fr.'s superior - and see if you can figure out why he had Fr. Feeney silenced and the reason he had him excommunicated. See if you can figure that out.
Stubborn,
The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 clearly states,
"Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church."
Your argument is over.
Paul FC,
Are you so very quick to condemn a Lumen Gentium's passage from Vatican II Council as actually heretical but hesitate to admit the possibility of error in the fallible Letter of the Holy Office of 1949?
This is the passage from Lumen Gentium you would quickly accuse as heretical :
"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'
This Vatican II Council passage has a its footnote nothing less than the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston". (*(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72)
Yet you approve of one, while dismiss the other. Double standard.
Interesting to note, in Lumen Gentium the phrase "implicit desire" (votum implicitum) which was so objectionable to Fr. Feeney was dropped.
Where did PaulFC even mention Lumen Gentium?
-
Huh, turns out FEENEYITES are the Liberals after all: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/chapter7.htm
"The Liberal Catholic calls himself a (41) Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgement does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects. He is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus unwittingly he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the Devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of (42) faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Syllabus of Pius IX is a nightmare to them, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory docuмent, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and if accepted, must be taken in a very modified sense. The Ultramontane interpretation is violent and extreme, and does much more harm than good by driving back the well disposed at such a show of illiberality.
Close upon this squeamishness in regard to the pronouncement of Catholic doctrine, follows an abhorrence to antagonize the convictions of others, no matter how directly opposed to revealed truth, for with Liberal Catholics the most erroneous are as sacred as the truest convictions, being equally founded upon the principle of intellectual liberty. Thus they erect into a dogma what is called the principle of toleration. The differences of belief are, after all, they complacently argue, due to differences of temperament, education, etc.; we will not exactly approve them, but we should at least condone them."
Why is that like every Feeneyite I have ever encountered to a T? lol.
-
In my experience, anti-Feeneyists are much (exponentially) more likely than Feeneyites to adulterate the Church's teaching on the sole basis of their own reason.
"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." - Fr. Clarence Kelly
"Fr. Paul Trinchard, in All About Salvation, goes to similar lengths to try and explain away one of the more obvious flaws in his argument—that claiming only physically baptized, card-carrying Catholics may enter heaven turns the all-merciful God of Christian Revelation into an ogre." - Michael J. Mazza
-
Huh, turns out FEENEYITES are the Liberals after all: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/chapter7.htm
"The Liberal Catholic calls himself a (41) Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgement does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects. He is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus unwittingly he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the Devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of (42) faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Syllabus of Pius IX is a nightmare to them, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory docuмent, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and if accepted, must be taken in a very modified sense. The Ultramontane interpretation is violent and extreme, and does much more harm than good by driving back the well disposed at such a show of illiberality.
Close upon this squeamishness in regard to the pronouncement of Catholic doctrine, follows an abhorrence to antagonize the convictions of others, no matter how directly opposed to revealed truth, for with Liberal Catholics the most erroneous are as sacred as the truest convictions, being equally founded upon the principle of intellectual liberty. Thus they erect into a dogma what is called the principle of toleration. The differences of belief are, after all, they complacently argue, due to differences of temperament, education, etc.; we will not exactly approve them, but we should at least condone them."
Why is that like every Feeneyite I have ever encountered to a T? lol.
No biggie there Gregory, it's all ok. Thankfully, the Feeneyites are members of the Church by desire and longing if not actual members. So it's all good.
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
-
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
How does it "look like" it when I didn't give any indication when I would do so?
-
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
How does it "look like" it when I didn't give any indication when I would do so?
You're right, I should have said it looks like you are no different then the others who said they would start a thread, but after 2 years and counting, found it the impossibility I said they would.
This is very interesting. Stubborn makes a challenge, but who will be the judge as to whether the person who takes that challenge succeeds?
You will be your own judge. Everyone already knows that we can not defend outwardly that which we inwardly despise. So since you cannot get yourself to do it, you judge yourself. That is the way it is *by design*.
The exact same can be said of not only you, but I guarantee Paul will never be able to get himself to do such a thing, shoot, he has a whole website devoted to why the sacraments are not a necessity - and he's proud of it! Nor will Gregory or any BODer be able to do it - proof is that after 2 years, still no takers.
-
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
How does it "look like" it when I didn't give any indication when I would do so?
You're right, I should have said it looks like you are no different then the others who said they would start a thread, but after 2 years and counting, found it the impossibility I said they would.
This is very interesting. Stubborn makes a challenge, but who will be the judge as to whether the person who takes that challenge succeeds?
You will be your own judge. Everyone already knows that we can not defend outwardly that which we inwardly despise. So since you cannot get yourself to do it, you judge yourself. That is the way it is *by design*.
The exact same can be said of not only you, but I guarantee Paul will never be able to get himself to do such a thing, shoot, he has a whole website devoted to why the sacraments are not a necessity - and he's proud of it! Nor will Gregory or any BODer be able to do it - proof is that after 2 years, still no takers.
You posit such nonsense you cannot even think straight about the most simple of things. Your reasoning has been debilitated. A couple of days pass and it shows no such thing as you are suggesting things "look" like. Your haste is making waste. Yes, the Sacrament of baptism is of necessity, by a necessity of means, and unfortunately, because you don't know what the UOM teaches, your faith and reasoning is messed up more and more as you try to defend your misunderstanding.
-
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
How does it "look like" it when I didn't give any indication when I would do so?
You're right, I should have said it looks like you are no different then the others who said they would start a thread, but after 2 years and counting, found it the impossibility I said they would.
This is very interesting. Stubborn makes a challenge, but who will be the judge as to whether the person who takes that challenge succeeds?
You will be your own judge. Everyone already knows that we can not defend outwardly that which we inwardly despise. So since you cannot get yourself to do it, you judge yourself. That is the way it is *by design*.
The exact same can be said of not only you, but I guarantee Paul will never be able to get himself to do such a thing, shoot, he has a whole website devoted to why the sacraments are not a necessity - and he's proud of it! Nor will Gregory or any BODer be able to do it - proof is that after 2 years, still no takers.
You posit such nonsense you cannot even think straight about the most simple of things. Your reasoning has been debilitated. A couple of days pass and it shows no such thing as you are suggesting things "look" like. Your haste is making waste. Yes, the Sacrament of baptism is of necessity, by a necessity of means, and unfortunately, because you don't know what the UOM teaches, your faith and reasoning is messed up more and more as you try to defend your misunderstanding.
It doesn't have to be about the sacrament of Baptism, it can be about any sacrament.
Also, you do not know who the UOM even is so how could you know what they teach? So you should probably learn about that before you go saying I don't know what the UOM teach.
And finally, I am not holding my breath waiting for you to do something everyone already knows is impossible for you or any other BODer to do, I just wanted to remind you of that fact is all. But believe it or not, I wish some BODer would prove me wrong, I'm pretty sure that it won't be you though.
-
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
How does it "look like" it when I didn't give any indication when I would do so?
You're right, I should have said it looks like you are no different then the others who said they would start a thread, but after 2 years and counting, found it the impossibility I said they would.
This is very interesting. Stubborn makes a challenge, but who will be the judge as to whether the person who takes that challenge succeeds?
You will be your own judge. Everyone already knows that we can not defend outwardly that which we inwardly despise. So since you cannot get yourself to do it, you judge yourself. That is the way it is *by design*.
The exact same can be said of not only you, but I guarantee Paul will never be able to get himself to do such a thing, shoot, he has a whole website devoted to why the sacraments are not a necessity - and he's proud of it! Nor will Gregory or any BODer be able to do it - proof is that after 2 years, still no takers.
You posit such nonsense you cannot even think straight about the most simple of things. Your reasoning has been debilitated. A couple of days pass and it shows no such thing as you are suggesting things "look" like. Your haste is making waste. Yes, the Sacrament of baptism is of necessity, by a necessity of means, and unfortunately, because you don't know what the UOM teaches, your faith and reasoning is messed up more and more as you try to defend your misunderstanding.
It doesn't have to be about the sacrament of Baptism, it can be about any sacrament.
Also, you do not know who the UOM even is so how could you know what they teach? So you should probably learn about that before you go saying I don't know what the UOM teach.
And finally, I am not holding my breath waiting for you to do something everyone already knows is impossible for you or any other BODer to do, I just wanted to remind you of that fact is all. But believe it or not, I wish some BODer would prove me wrong, I'm pretty sure that it won't be you though.
Ah yes, "everyone already knows". How many sheets of paper did your poll take to fit on?
-
Just helping you out in case you missed this from PaulFC's post.........
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=272&num=1)
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
The universal and ordinary magisterium " consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i. e., all the bishops of the universal Church,— dependently on the Roman Pontiff.
-
Just helping you out in case you missed this from PaulFC's post.........
Post (http:///catholic.php?a=topic&t=38915&min=272&num=1)
Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
The universal and ordinary magisterium " consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i. e., all the bishops of the universal Church,— dependently on the Roman Pontiff.
Now you are agreeing that the UOM is a subject for this thread. Make up your mind if you want it discussed here or not.
-
Like I said, just trying to help you out.
Otherwise you might want to use PaulFC's "UOM Flowchart".
-
Like I said, just trying to help you out.
Otherwise you might want to use PaulFC's "UOM Flowchart".
Mental cases think they are helping, but they are not. I say something, and then you reply as if you are insane. Do you get a kick out of doing that, or you just can't help yourself?
-
Huh, turns out FEENEYITES are the Liberals after all: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/chapter7.htm
"The Liberal Catholic calls himself a (41) Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgement does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects. He is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus unwittingly he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the Devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of (42) faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Syllabus of Pius IX is a nightmare to them, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory docuмent, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and if accepted, must be taken in a very modified sense. The Ultramontane interpretation is violent and extreme, and does much more harm than good by driving back the well disposed at such a show of illiberality.
Close upon this squeamishness in regard to the pronouncement of Catholic doctrine, follows an abhorrence to antagonize the convictions of others, no matter how directly opposed to revealed truth, for with Liberal Catholics the most erroneous are as sacred as the truest convictions, being equally founded upon the principle of intellectual liberty. Thus they erect into a dogma what is called the principle of toleration. The differences of belief are, after all, they complacently argue, due to differences of temperament, education, etc.; we will not exactly approve them, but we should at least condone them."
Why is that like every Feeneyite I have ever encountered to a T? lol.
No biggie there Gregory, it's all ok. Thankfully, the Feeneyites are members of the Church by desire and longing if not actual members. So it's all good.
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
No, you are excluded from belonging to the Church by desire because of your pertinacity. Insofar as you refuse correction and to acknowledge what is painted on the wall, you hypothetically disqualify any potential for belonging to the soul of the Church, because, as St. Cyprian of Carthage says:
"Let none think that the good can depart from the Church. The wind does not carry away the wheat, nor does the hurricane uproot the tree that is based on a solid root. The light straws are tossed about by the tempest, the feeble trees are overthrown by the onset of the whirlwind."
You have elevated your mind above what the Church teaches in her ordinary universal magisterium, which you MISTAKENLY understand as necessarily extensive in time. It is NOT NECESSARILY ETENSIVE IN TIME.
What EVERY Catholic Bishop teaches TODAY, in unity with the See of Peter as a truth revealed by God is by DEFINITION, infallible. This is PRECISELY because there is NO MOMENT in time in which the Church can fall away from the truth.
So, please, away with your arguments pointing to qualifiers for the ordinary universal magisterium. It is not POSSIBLE for it to defect from tradition, it is not POSSIBLE for it to be anything but traditional, for it is NOT POSSIBLE for the entirety of the episcopate joined to the Pope to be anything BUT traditional.
The propositions of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium ARE tradition.
You must bow to this. It is the teaching of the Popes and of the theologians and of the saints.
-
Like I said, just trying to help you out.
Otherwise you might want to use PaulFC's "UOM Flowchart".
Mental cases think they are helping, but they are not. I say something, and then you reply as if you are insane. Do you get a kick out of doing that, or you just can't help yourself?
You just can't help but to keep proving me right. That's not the goal here McCork.
-
No biggie there Gregory, it's all ok. Thankfully, the Feeneyites are members of the Church by desire and longing if not actual members. So it's all good.
Say, why don't you accept the challenge? You post huge voluminous posts, should be right up your alley. It's been over 2 years and no takers yet! McCork (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=443&num=1) said he would do it a few days ago, but looks like he's going to end up being another BODer proving me to be still correct.
No, you are excluded from belonging to the Church by desire because of your pertinacity. Insofar as you refuse correction and to acknowledge what is painted on the wall, you hypothetically disqualify any potential for belonging to the soul of the Church, because, as St. Cyprian of Carthage says:
Now hold on a minute, ok? Please read it as it is written, if you can do this, you will find that The Letter never mentioned anything about pertinacity at all - quite the opposite.
Allow me to quote the pertinent verbiage:
"Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing."
I do not believe that you think that Fr. Feeney was so pertinent that he did not desire and long to belong to the Church. If that's what you believe, you are wrong and in no position to disqualify anyone.
Even in your errors, all the feeneyites, all the NOers, the conciliar popes, the conciliar bishops, cardinals, priests, nuns - they all desire and long to belong to the Church, so they all meet the least requirement, per The Letter.
You should perhaps read it again.
-
Oh! any one can can be saved by ignorance.............except a follower of Father Feeney.............. :scratchchin:........ :facepalm:............................... :roll-laugh1:
-
Like I said, just trying to help you out.
Otherwise you might want to use PaulFC's "UOM Flowchart".
Mental cases think they are helping, but they are not. I say something, and then you reply as if you are insane. Do you get a kick out of doing that, or you just can't help yourself?
You just can't help but to keep proving me right. That's not the goal here McCork.
Everyone here has got your number...except for those who are already infected.
-
Infected with what? Catholicism?
-
Infected with what? Catholicism?
Those who are also infected by heretical Feeneyism.
-
Hey McCork, perhaps you would care to answer this question:
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
-
Oh! any one can can be saved by ignorance.............except a follower of Father Feeney.............. :scratchchin:........ :facepalm:............................... :roll-laugh1:
According to Fr. Paul Robinson, there is baptism of desire, but it would not apply to "Feeneyites." (Was he frothing at the mouth when he sermonized this one? Don't know - wasn't sitting close enough.)
:popcorn:
-
Hey McCork, perhaps you would care to answer this question:
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
That's like someone quoting another quote:
"Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
And suggesting that babies who die cannot go to heaven.
Protestants reject what the Church teaches because of what they personally think. This is what Feeneyites do.
-
That's like someone quoting another quote:
"Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
And suggesting that babies who die cannot go to heaven.
Protestants reject what the Church teaches because of what they personally think. This is what Feeneyites do.
Dodge #1.
Then you shouldn't have any problem answering the question. Yes or no. Either they CAN enter the Kingdom of God or they can NOT enter it. It's one or the other.
When you've answered the question directly, I'll hold your hand and explain why your quote concerning the Eucharist and the statement of Our Lord concerning baptism are not comparable.
You dodged because you know where this is going.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
-
That's like someone quoting another quote:
"Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
And suggesting that babies who die cannot go to heaven.
Protestants reject what the Church teaches because of what they personally think. This is what Feeneyites do.
Dodge #1.
Then you shouldn't have any problem answering the question. Yes or no. Either they CAN enter the Kingdom of God or they can NOT enter it. It's one or the other.
When you've answered the question directly, I'll hold your hand and explain why your quote concerning the Eucharist and the statement of Our Lord concerning baptism are not comparable.
You dodged because you know where this is going.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
-
That's like someone quoting another quote:
"Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
And suggesting that babies who die cannot go to heaven.
Protestants reject what the Church teaches because of what they personally think. This is what Feeneyites do.
Don't want to get in the way of Stubborn and his work here, but McCork - are you saying that the Council of Trent should not be believed when it says that water is necessary for baptism, although the Council anathematized anyone not believing it? Are you picking and choosing what the Church in this her highest authority, has said we must believe or be anathema?
Just checking. We know you would want to follow whatever the True Church really and truly teaches.
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Everyone knows baptism of desire excludes physical water. Official canon law, long before Vatican II, had been enacted by the Church that tells priests to offer a requiem mass for any catechumen who dies before being baptised with physical water. Are you going to criticize the Church for making that official legislation and suggest nobody in the whole world noticed it being against solemn dogma?
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Everyone knows baptism of desire excludes physical water. Official canon law, long before Vatican II, had been enacted by the Church that tells priests to offer a requiem mass for any catechumen who dies before being baptised with physical water. Are you going to criticize the Church for making that official legislation and suggest nobody in the whole world noticed it being against solemn dogma?
Thank you very much for not answering my question.
I'm not criticizing anyone, nor am I suggesting anything. I'm asking you a direct question. Be honest and answer it directly. Stop dodging and squirming around.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Everyone knows baptism of desire excludes physical water. Official canon law, long before Vatican II, had been enacted by the Church that tells priests to offer a requiem mass for any catechumen who dies before being baptised with physical water. Are you going to criticize the Church for making that official legislation and suggest nobody in the whole world noticed it being against solemn dogma?
Thank you very much for not answering my question.
I'm not criticizing anyone, nor am I suggesting anything. I'm asking you a direct question. Be honest and answer it directly. Stop dodging and squirming around.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Getting a direct answer from any BODer to that question? ihsv, it's not going to happen. Oh they'll dance around it and post entire essays, even toss in an ad hominem here and there for good measure, that's what can be expected.
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Everyone knows baptism of desire excludes physical water.
And everyone knows that your statement is heretical ... except of course yourself.
Even if you believe in BoD, due to the dogmatic teaching of Trent, you must say that Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, that such people receive Baptism in voto rather than being justified WITHOUT Baptism. So the answer to ihsv's question is a simple, categorical NO. If you can't say NO, despite Our Lord's clear and unambiguous teaching, then you have serious problems with your grasp on the faith. You are immediately discredited from being an informed participant in any further discussion of this subject. You hold to the heresy (condemned by Trent) that justification is possible in the New Covenant without the Sacraments.
-
That's like someone quoting another quote:
"Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
And suggesting that babies who die cannot go to heaven.
No, it's not "like" anything of the sort. This clearly has always been interpreted by the Fathers and all theologians as being necessary by necessity of precept and by moral necessity. On the contrary, all the Fathers and theologians have always taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means.
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Everyone knows baptism of desire excludes physical water.
And everyone knows that your statement is heretical ... except of course yourself.
Even if you believe in BoD, due to the dogmatic teaching of Trent, you must say that Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, that such people receive Baptism in voto rather than being justified WITHOUT Baptism. So the answer to ihsv's question is a simple, categorical NO. If you can't say NO, despite Our Lord's clear and unambiguous teaching, then you have serious problems with your grasp on the faith. You are immediately discredited from being an informed participant in any further discussion of this subject. You hold to the heresy (condemned by Trent) that justification is possible in the New Covenant without the Sacraments.
Gotta love when the Feeneyites try to use the Council of Trent against baptism of desire:
St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".
St. Alphonsus Liguori also states, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...".
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent".
And the quote from the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..."
-
It leads directly to you denying that the Church teaches baptism of desire as NECESSARY for salvation and PART of the Sacrament of baptism.
Stop dodging and answer the question.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no?
Everyone knows baptism of desire excludes physical water.
And everyone knows that your statement is heretical ... except of course yourself.
Even if you believe in BoD, due to the dogmatic teaching of Trent, you must say that Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, that such people receive Baptism in voto rather than being justified WITHOUT Baptism. So the answer to ihsv's question is a simple, categorical NO. If you can't say NO, despite Our Lord's clear and unambiguous teaching, then you have serious problems with your grasp on the faith. You are immediately discredited from being an informed participant in any further discussion of this subject. You hold to the heresy (condemned by Trent) that justification is possible in the New Covenant without the Sacraments.
"Everyone knows". Lying through your teeth.
-
Get the Council of Trent itself saying that, in a dependable OLD translation. Don't give it as a Saint quoting it. Anyone can say a saint said this or that ... and even if a saint did say it, he would be mistaken. Go back to an original Trent source, with an accurate translation.
-
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
These two are not the same question.
The first is true, the second is false.
Why?
Because ihsv is doing the typical heretical Protestant ploy of rephrasing Scripture as a LITERAL question, and then imposing a yes or no to his own interpretation that it is literal.
The fact is, the Church says it is NOT literally true. The Feeneyites are like Protestants, deciding with private interpretation against Church authority, that it is strictly literal.
-
Get the Council of Trent itself saying that, in a dependable OLD translation. Don't give it as a Saint quoting it. Anyone can say a saint said this or that ... and even if a saint did say it, he would be mistaken. Go back to an original Trent source, with an accurate translation.
Those were actual quotes from 2 Doctors of the Church, a quote from the Encyclopedia which contains imprimatur, and most prominent of all, a quote directly from the Holy Office.
You have zero credibility above those Church sources.
-
Get the Council of Trent itself saying that, in a dependable OLD translation. Don't give it as a Saint quoting it. Anyone can say a saint said this or that ... and even if a saint did say it, he would be mistaken. Go back to an original Trent source, with an accurate translation.
Those were actual quotes from 2 Doctors of the Church, a quote from the Encyclopedia which contains imprimatur, and most prominent of all, a quote directly from the Holy Office.
You have zero credibility above those Church sources.
Not so. Go to the original source. Not liberalized, possibly tampered with, or mistaken saints. The Church is above saints and encyclopedias. This is part of the point - that there has been a breakdown in communication of the original, orthodox position.
-
Get the Council of Trent itself saying that, in a dependable OLD translation. Don't give it as a Saint quoting it. Anyone can say a saint said this or that ... and even if a saint did say it, he would be mistaken. Go back to an original Trent source, with an accurate translation.
Those were actual quotes from 2 Doctors of the Church, a quote from the Encyclopedia which contains imprimatur, and most prominent of all, a quote directly from the Holy Office.
You have zero credibility above those Church sources.
Not so. Go to the original source. Not liberalized, possibly tampered with, or mistaken saints. The Church is above saints and encyclopedias. This is part of the point - that there has been a breakdown in communication of the original, orthodox position.
If those Saints were in error, then why did every pope after them not accuse them of being in error, and instead all of them unanimously agreed they were the greatest of Saints, Doctors of the Church? You don't sound like you are thinking clearly.
And when you say "the Church is above Saints and encyclopedias", don't you realize the letter from the Holy Office in 1949 is a statement from the Church?? It says right in it that Pope Pius XII gave his full approval to the letter.
-
And Pope Pius XII had been the worst pope in the history of the Church before the Vat.II council the way to which he personally PAVED with his inexcusable injustices to the Faith, not excluding the execrable screed 122/49, which the abominable Rahner managed to sneak into Denzinger (which is btw not an official publication of the Church).
.
-
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
These two are not the same question.
The first is true, the second is false.
Why?
Because ihsv is doing the typical heretical Protestant ploy of rephrasing Scripture as a LITERAL question, and then imposing a yes or no to his own interpretation that it is literal.
The fact is, the Church says it is NOT literally true. The Feeneyites are like Protestants, deciding with private interpretation against Church authority, that it is strictly literal.
Hey Genius,
1. Of course they're not the same question. The quote from Our Lord is a statement of fact, not a question.
2. What I posed is a question, not a statement. If you want me to explain the difference between a statement and a question, just let me know. (Hint: Look for the question mark. Then look for the period.)
3. I never quoted Our Lord. I never appealed to scripture, either.
4. I gave no interpretation at all. Nor did I pretend that anything was literal, or anything figurative.
5. The question I posed is whether or not X can do Y. It's an either/or question, not a true/false statement. Either a man CAN enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost or he can NOT. There literally is no other possibility.
6. Again, I gave no interpretation of anything, private or otherwise, in line with, or against, Church authority.
You are afraid of the answer to the question. Either answer poses some serious problems for your position, and you know it. This is why you and everyone else of your opinion refuses to answer it.
So stop dodging, stop your incessant dishonesty, and deal with the question at hand.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
-
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
These two are not the same question.
The first is true, the second is false.
Why?
Because ihsv is doing the typical heretical Protestant ploy of rephrasing Scripture as a LITERAL question, and then imposing a yes or no to his own interpretation that it is literal.
The fact is, the Church says it is NOT literally true. The Feeneyites are like Protestants, deciding with private interpretation against Church authority, that it is strictly literal.
Hey Genius,
1. Of course they're not the same question. The quote from Our Lord is a statement of fact, not a question.
2. What I posed is a question, not a statement. If you want me to explain the difference between a statement and a question, just let me know. (Hint: Look for the question mark. Then look for the period.)
3. I never quoted Our Lord. I never appealed to scripture, either.
4. I gave no interpretation at all. Nor did I pretend that anything was literal, or anything figurative.
5. The question I posed is whether or not X can do Y. It's an either/or question, not a true/false statement. Either a man CAN enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost or he can NOT. There literally is no other possibility.
6. Again, I gave no interpretation of anything, private or otherwise, in line with, or against, Church authority.
You are afraid of the answer to the question. Either answer poses some serious problems for your position, and you know it. This is why you and everyone else of your opinion refuses to answer it.
So stop dodging, stop your incessant dishonesty, and deal with the question at hand.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
-
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
Just to be sure, your answer to the following question: "Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?", is "yes", correct?
-
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
Just to be sure, your answer to the following question: "Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?", is "yes", correct?
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
-
And speaking of "silly games", it's taken over 20 posts from when I asked the question before I managed to get some semblance of an answer.
-
And by the way, I think you know what my point is.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
What the heck are you talking about? I just answered "yes" to your question.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
Nevermind "years", I've been debating this subject probably since before you were born. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the silly cat and mouse games you are playing - I don't waste my time anymore. I've cut to the chase and compiled my arguments on baptismofdesire.com, and all Feeneyites have been completely silenced by it for years now. If you are that experienced, maybe you can be the hero and provide arguments to what's on the homepage there.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
What the heck are you talking about? I just answered "yes" to your question.
Very good.
McCork says a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
I will resume this tomorrow.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
Nevermind "years", I've been debating this subject probably since before you were born. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the silly cat and mouse games you are playing - I don't waste my time anymore. I've cut to the chase and compiled my arguments on baptismofdesire.com, and all Feeneyites have been completely silenced by it for years now. If you are that experienced, maybe you can be the hero and provide arguments to what's on the homepage there.
:rolleyes:
Are you going to be honest and admit you're afraid of answering the question? And that in order to avoid doing so, you cloud the issue by saying how "you've seen it all before"? If you're so experienced, why not just answer the question? Why are you dodging?
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
What the heck are you talking about? I just answered "yes" to your question.
Very good.
McCork says a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
I will resume this tomorrow.
Looking forward to it!
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
Nevermind "years", I've been debating this subject probably since before you were born. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the silly cat and mouse games you are playing - I don't waste my time anymore. I've cut to the chase and compiled my arguments on baptismofdesire.com, and all Feeneyites have been completely silenced by it for years now. If you are that experienced, maybe you can be the hero and provide arguments to what's on the homepage there.
ihsv, you have your work cut out for you - this guy's been promulgating the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation since probably before you were born - and he is proud of that. Trent says to "let him be anathema", they must have had a good reason for putting it that way.
-
I am putting Stubborn on ignore while I discuss with ihsv.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
Nevermind "years", I've been debating this subject probably since before you were born. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the silly cat and mouse games you are playing - I don't waste my time anymore. I've cut to the chase and compiled my arguments on baptismofdesire.com, and all Feeneyites have been completely silenced by it for years now. If you are that experienced, maybe you can be the hero and provide arguments to what's on the homepage there.
ihsv, you have your work cut out for you - this guy's been promulgating the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation since probably before you were born - and he is proud of that. Trent says to "let him be anathema", they must have had a good reason for putting it that way.
He never answered my question, by the way.
As the runner of baptismofdesire.com,it would be interesting to hear your reply on this. We can also further discuss the connection between BOD, Pluralism, and Religious Liberty in the appropriate subforum and the reason why in these times of crisis that call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics conductive to restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion was an option.
PaulFC,
Honestly, why do you think that in these times of crisis that desperately call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics better conductive to Catholic restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion to the True Religion was an option?.
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
-
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
PFC does no such thing. Everyone who is saved is considered a Catholic, whether they were physically baptised with water, or baptised by the Holy Ghost through their will. Conversion is not an option, it is mandatory.
-
PaulFC,
Honestly, why do you think that in these times of crisis that desperately call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics better conductive to Catholic restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion to the True Religion was an option?.
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
Cantarella,
You misunderstand the subject, and have come to a wrong conclusion because of it. There is a reason why the website quotes Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, and other trusted Church references, all in support of baptism of desire and blood. it's because they all openly support it!
Open your eyes brother - saying I'm doing damage to the Church is also saying that all of these sources I just mentioned have also done damage to the Church. It's beyond absurdity.
-
I am putting Stubborn on ignore while I discuss with ihsv.
I was just going to say the SAME thing. Looking at his posts around the site, he plays devils advocate in basically every discussion - clouding them and dragging them out, even when proven wrong repeatedly. I'm starting to wonder if he's getting paid to generate activity on here.
-
I am putting Stubborn on ignore while I discuss with ihsv.
I was just going to say the SAME thing. Looking at his posts around the site, he plays devils advocate in basically every discussion - clouding them and dragging them out, even when proven wrong repeatedly. I'm starting to wonder if he's getting paid to generate activity on here.
I tried baiting one of you BODers into defending the necessity of the sacraments, then McCork comes out and admits Our Lord did not mean what He said, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary - that's supposed to be a Catholic saying that?
At least McCork the first honest BODer I have ever known, I'll give him that much......least ways till he sticks his foot in his own mouth again.
And getting paid to argue - ha! Arguing with BODers such as yourself is more of a hobby. Far as I can see, you're king of BODers and proud of it, too bad you neglect to attempt to answer any of my questions or challenges, we could go on for many pages.
-
I am putting Stubborn on ignore while I discuss with ihsv.
I was just going to say the SAME thing. Looking at his posts around the site, he plays devils advocate in basically every discussion - clouding them and dragging them out, even when proven wrong repeatedly. I'm starting to wonder if he's getting paid to generate activity on here.
I tried baiting one of you BODers into defending the necessity of the sacraments, then McCork comes out and admits Our Lord did not mean what He said, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary - that's supposed to be a Catholic saying that?
At least McCork the first honest BODer I have ever known, I'll give him that much......least ways till he sticks his foot in his own mouth again.
And getting paid to argue - ha! Arguing with BODers such as yourself is more of a hobby. Far as I can see, you're king of BODers and proud of it, too bad you neglect to attempt to answer any of my questions or challenges, we could go on for many pages.
Stubborn now is officially hidden. What peace of mind.
-
It's no wonder all the feeneyites have been silenced by your BOD site, the thing is, ignoring is not silencing.
-
It's no wonder all the feeneyites have been silenced by your BOD site, the thing is, ignoring is not silencing.
Except, of course, when you are the one making the challenge, then when others ignore it, it doesn't mean that anymore; it means they don't have an answer. Self-centered, double-standard you have.
-
PaulFC,
Honestly, why do you think that in these times of crisis that desperately call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics better conductive to Catholic restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion to the True Religion was an option?.
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
Cantarella,
You misunderstand the subject, and have come to a wrong conclusion because of it. There is a reason why the website quotes Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, and other trusted Church references, all in support of baptism of desire and blood. it's because they all openly support it!
Open your eyes brother - saying I'm doing damage to the Church is also saying that all of these sources I just mentioned have also done damage to the Church. It's beyond absurdity.
That is not a response to the question at all. Why did you even bother collecting all this *supposed" pro - BOD sources and took the time to set up a website to promote it, precisely in these times? The Novus Ordo Catholics are not even half militant against the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus dogma as these CMRI sedevacantists are... If one finds a pro - BOD website, chances are very very high that it is a sedevacantist who runs it. My Opus Dei acquaintances do not have such a serious problem with Fr. Feeney or with the simple Catholic notion that one needs to be validly baptized to get to Heaven. The irony!
Can't you see that it is precisely BOD (better yet, Salvation by Implicit Desire of non-Catholics, which is what this really has become) is the very root of Vatican II Ecclesiology? It is the direct reasoning behind Religious Liberty and False Ecuмenism.
Do you feel that Fr. Feeney (and the Feeneyite communities) is a bigger threat than, let's say, Vatican II Council, therefore requiring such levels of attention?
-
It's no wonder all the feeneyites have been silenced by your BOD site, the thing is, ignoring is not silencing.
Except, of course, when you are the one making the challenge, then when others ignore it, it doesn't mean that anymore; it means they don't have an answer. Self-centered, double-standard you have.
You already told ihsv that you believe a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, which is a direct contradiction to the words of Our Lord and the decree of Trent.
So you cannot say it means you don't have an answer, that IS your answer.
That is the reason why you and the other BODers cannot meet the challenge - it is an impossibility for any BODer to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as long as they believe in a BOD - that's just the way it works, and it's been proven true for the last +2 years. My hope was that every BODer would see that they cannot do that which they should be able to do, see that "something is wrong" with their belief, that they would ask themselves, "why can't I defend the necessity of sacraments?"
Although I hoped you would be the one to prove me wrong, I guess knew the whole time you would not be able to meet the challenge. I tried bating others in the past, but I put forth extra effort with you.
The challenge remains open, mostly ignored, but never the less, it remains open.
-
It's no wonder all the feeneyites have been silenced by your BOD site, the thing is, ignoring is not silencing.
Except, of course, when you are the one making the challenge, then when others ignore it, it doesn't mean that anymore; it means they don't have an answer. Self-centered, double-standard you have.
You already told ihsv that you believe a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, which is a direct contradiction to the words of Our Lord and the decree of Trent.
So you cannot say it means you don't have an answer, that IS your answer.
That is the reason why you and the other BODers cannot meet the challenge - it is an impossibility for any BODer to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as long as they believe in a BOD - that's just the way it works, and it's been proven true for the last +2 years. My hope was that every BODer would see that they cannot do that which they should be able to do, see that "something is wrong" with their belief, that they would ask themselves, "why can't I defend the necessity of sacraments?"
Although I hoped you would be the one to prove me wrong, I guess knew the whole time you would not be able to meet the challenge. I tried bating others in the past, but I put forth extra effort with you.
The challenge remains open, mostly ignored, but never the less, it remains open.
Double-standard man, I will be discussing this with ihsv. You will be out of the picture. You appear very challenged when it comes to reasoning.
-
From The Great Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide, Vol. V., pg. 103.
-
It's no wonder all the feeneyites have been silenced by your BOD site, the thing is, ignoring is not silencing.
Except, of course, when you are the one making the challenge, then when others ignore it, it doesn't mean that anymore; it means they don't have an answer. Self-centered, double-standard you have.
You already told ihsv that you believe a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, which is a direct contradiction to the words of Our Lord and the decree of Trent.
So you cannot say it means you don't have an answer, that IS your answer.
That is the reason why you and the other BODers cannot meet the challenge - it is an impossibility for any BODer to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as long as they believe in a BOD - that's just the way it works, and it's been proven true for the last +2 years. My hope was that every BODer would see that they cannot do that which they should be able to do, see that "something is wrong" with their belief, that they would ask themselves, "why can't I defend the necessity of sacraments?"
Although I hoped you would be the one to prove me wrong, I guess knew the whole time you would not be able to meet the challenge. I tried bating others in the past, but I put forth extra effort with you.
The challenge remains open, mostly ignored, but never the less, it remains open.
Double-standard man, I will be discussing this with ihsv. You will be out of the picture. You appear very challenged when it comes to reasoning.
As long as you keep promoting the absence of baptism as being salvific, that's apparently the only standard you can understand.
-
From The Great Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide, Vol. V., pg. 103.
-
It's no wonder all the feeneyites have been silenced by your BOD site, the thing is, ignoring is not silencing.
Except, of course, when you are the one making the challenge, then when others ignore it, it doesn't mean that anymore; it means they don't have an answer. Self-centered, double-standard you have.
You already told ihsv that you believe a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, which is a direct contradiction to the words of Our Lord and the decree of Trent.
So you cannot say it means you don't have an answer, that IS your answer.
That is the reason why you and the other BODers cannot meet the challenge - it is an impossibility for any BODer to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as long as they believe in a BOD - that's just the way it works, and it's been proven true for the last +2 years. My hope was that every BODer would see that they cannot do that which they should be able to do, see that "something is wrong" with their belief, that they would ask themselves, "why can't I defend the necessity of sacraments?"
Although I hoped you would be the one to prove me wrong, I guess knew the whole time you would not be able to meet the challenge. I tried bating others in the past, but I put forth extra effort with you.
The challenge remains open, mostly ignored, but never the less, it remains open.
Double-standard man, I will be discussing this with ihsv. You will be out of the picture. You appear very challenged when it comes to reasoning.
As long as you keep promoting the absence of baptism as being salvific, that's apparently the only standard you can understand.
The absence of baptism is NOT salvific.
-
The absence of baptism is NOT salvific.
We agree!
So you no longer believe in salvation via NSAA (No Sacrament at All)?
But then why do you say that you believe a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
-
I see no problem with the quote you posted, Stubborn. In Genesis Chapter 7 of Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 Edition he actually teaches baptism of desire: “In these last words of St. Peter, we may also notice, that the ark was a figure of baptism, which is so necessary, that without its reception, or desire of it at least, no man can be saved.”
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id334.html
-
The absence of baptism is NOT salvific.
We agree!
So you no longer believe in salvation via NSAA (No Sacrament at All)?
But then why do you say that you believe a man can enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
I think you are coming along by saying "at All", but, nevertheless, my discussion will be with ihsv, so I won't say any more. Let's see if ihsv comes through and doesn't back out. I am also looking forward to him answering some questions "yes or no"
-
PaulFC,
Honestly, why do you think that in these times of crisis that desperately call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics better conductive to Catholic restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion to the True Religion was an option?.
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
Cantarella,
You misunderstand the subject, and have come to a wrong conclusion because of it. There is a reason why the website quotes Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, and other trusted Church references, all in support of baptism of desire and blood. it's because they all openly support it!
Open your eyes brother - saying I'm doing damage to the Church is also saying that all of these sources I just mentioned have also done damage to the Church. It's beyond absurdity.
That is not a response to the question at all. Why did you even bother collecting all this *supposed" pro - BOD sources and took the time to set up a website to promote it, precisely in these times? The Novus Ordo Catholics are not even half militant against the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus dogma as these CMRI sedevacantists are... If one finds a pro - BOD website, chances are very very high that it is a sedevacantist who runs it. My Opus Dei acquaintances do not have such a serious problem with Fr. Feeney or with the simple Catholic notion that one needs to be validly baptized to get to Heaven. The irony!
Can't you see that it is precisely BOD (better yet, Salvation by Implicit Desire of non-Catholics, which is what this really has become) is the very root of Vatican II Ecclesiology? It is the direct reasoning behind Religious Liberty and False Ecuмenism.
Do you feel that Fr. Feeney (and the Feeneyite communities) is a bigger threat than, let's say, Vatican II Council, therefore requiring such levels of attention?
Cantarella,
The reasoning you are trying to use here is frightening. Go look at the quotes from the Church on the homepage of baptismofdesire.com. The quotes span over 1800 years of the Church; so the teaching on BOD/BOB has absolutely NOTHING to do with Vatican II. How could you even suggest it?
You call those quotes "supposed pro-BOD" when there are about 6 popes in the list, and about 11 Doctors of the Church? I'm really starting to worry about your sanity here.
-
I am putting Stubborn on ignore while I discuss with ihsv.
I was just going to say the SAME thing. Looking at his posts around the site, he plays devils advocate in basically every discussion - clouding them and dragging them out, even when proven wrong repeatedly. I'm starting to wonder if he's getting paid to generate activity on here.
I tried baiting one of you BODers into defending the necessity of the sacraments, then McCork comes out and admits Our Lord did not mean what He said, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary - that's supposed to be a Catholic saying that?
At least McCork the first honest BODer I have ever known, I'll give him that much......least ways till he sticks his foot in his own mouth again.
And getting paid to argue - ha! Arguing with BODers such as yourself is more of a hobby. Far as I can see, you're king of BODers and proud of it, too bad you neglect to attempt to answer any of my questions or challenges, we could go on for many pages.
Stubborn now is officially hidden. What peace of mind.
Dear Hide button.... I think I love you. You are the most useful invention ever.
:laugh1:
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
Nevermind "years", I've been debating this subject probably since before you were born. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the silly cat and mouse games you are playing - I don't waste my time anymore. I've cut to the chase and compiled my arguments on baptismofdesire.com, and all Feeneyites have been completely silenced by it for years now. If you are that experienced, maybe you can be the hero and provide arguments to what's on the homepage there.
:rolleyes:
Are you going to be honest and admit you're afraid of answering the question? And that in order to avoid doing so, you cloud the issue by saying how "you've seen it all before"? If you're so experienced, why not just answer the question? Why are you dodging?
ihsv,
It's pretty funny that you think you are some kind of super interrogator with your questioning, thinking that you are somehow going to catch us off-guard, and say "Gotcha!". Again, I've been doing this a very, very long time and can't count how many times a Feeneyite starts off with the same questioning that you are. They all use the same playbook...the method you are using is OLD news. You are not going to catch anyone off-guard with it.
Here's how the conversation always goes:
1) You will argue, presenting x number of quotes, that water is required for baptism. No Catholic would dare challenge this, so any quote you present, I can tell you right now, we agree with it.
2) In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament. These quotes span the entire history of the Church and are too numerous to be ignored. You will deny all of them anyway.
3) When the dust settles, you will have presented quotes on water baptism which we agree with, and we will have presented quotes on bod/bob which you disagree with. It goes the SAME way every time.
4) Then starts the landslide of absolutely lame arguments from your side on how the popes that taught bod were not speaking infallibly, or that Doctors of the Church are not infallible, or that they've been in error all these centuries and no one noticed, or that we are taking quotes out of context, or that we have bad translations, etc., etc., etc. All I can say is, LAME and easily disproven.
5) In the end, the final crux of the matter is always the same; the Feeneyites don't know what the ordinary magisterium is, and as a consequence, refuse to believe what it teaches. You think that everything must be solemnly defined before you believe it, which is absolutely false. You Feeneyites simply need to research and learn what the ordinary magisterium is, and it will solve ALL of your mental blocks on this subject.
So please save us the endless slinging of quotes going back and forth for days on end, only to reach the same point I am saying here.
-
PaulFC,
Honestly, why do you think that in these times of crisis that desperately call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics better conductive to Catholic restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion to the True Religion was an option?.
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
Cantarella,
You misunderstand the subject, and have come to a wrong conclusion because of it. There is a reason why the website quotes Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, and other trusted Church references, all in support of baptism of desire and blood. it's because they all openly support it!
Open your eyes brother - saying I'm doing damage to the Church is also saying that all of these sources I just mentioned have also done damage to the Church. It's beyond absurdity.
That is not a response to the question at all. Why did you even bother collecting all this *supposed" pro - BOD sources and took the time to set up a website to promote it, precisely in these times? The Novus Ordo Catholics are not even half militant against the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus dogma as these CMRI sedevacantists are... If one finds a pro - BOD website, chances are very very high that it is a sedevacantist who runs it. My Opus Dei acquaintances do not have such a serious problem with Fr. Feeney or with the simple Catholic notion that one needs to be validly baptized to get to Heaven. The irony!
Can't you see that it is precisely BOD (better yet, Salvation by Implicit Desire of non-Catholics, which is what this really has become) is the very root of Vatican II Ecclesiology? It is the direct reasoning behind Religious Liberty and False Ecuмenism.
Do you feel that Fr. Feeney (and the Feeneyite communities) is a bigger threat than, let's say, Vatican II Council, therefore requiring such levels of attention?
Cantarella,
The reasoning you are trying to use here is frightening. Go look at the quotes from the Church on the homepage of baptismofdesire.com. The quotes span over 1800 years of the Church; so the teaching on BOD/BOB has absolutely NOTHING to do with Vatican II. How could you even suggest it?
You call those quotes "supposed pro-BOD" when there are about 6 popes in the list, and about 11 Doctors of the Church? I'm really starting to worry about your sanity here.
Instead of worrying about my sanity, keep focused and respond this:
If it is possible that non-Catholics are in the state of Sanctifying Grace, that means that the Holy Ghost can dwell within the souls of them. Now, if we accept that the Holy Ghost can actually dwell on the souls of Jews, Mohammedans, pagans, even agnostics or atheists who actually are hidden Catholics (members of the Mystical Body of Christ), why should we refuse to pray with them? and what right on earth do we have to force the Catholic religion upon them?
With the acceptance of "Salvation by Implicit Desire", there can be no meaningful argument against Religious Liberty or False Ecuмenism. This type of reasoning leads to the Prayers at Assisi.
If you genuinely have no idea what I am talking about, then you have been really wasting time running that website, more than I first imagined, so it is back to square 1 for you:
Let me recommend you the Saint John Neumann Elementary Catechism published in 1884:
http://store.catholicism.org/saint-john-neumann-elementary-catechism-pdf.html
Not a word of BOD there, by the way.
-
I am putting Stubborn on ignore while I discuss with ihsv.
I was just going to say the SAME thing. Looking at his posts around the site, he plays devils advocate in basically every discussion - clouding them and dragging them out, even when proven wrong repeatedly. I'm starting to wonder if he's getting paid to generate activity on here.
I tried baiting one of you BODers into defending the necessity of the sacraments, then McCork comes out and admits Our Lord did not mean what He said, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary - that's supposed to be a Catholic saying that?
At least McCork the first honest BODer I have ever known, I'll give him that much......least ways till he sticks his foot in his own mouth again.
And getting paid to argue - ha! Arguing with BODers such as yourself is more of a hobby. Far as I can see, you're king of BODers and proud of it, too bad you neglect to attempt to answer any of my questions or challenges, we could go on for many pages.
Stubborn now is officially hidden. What peace of mind.
Dear Hide button.... I think I love you. You are the most useful invention ever.
:laugh1:
This is how PaulFC silenced the feeneyites: he made a website, then he makes like a weasel and hides. He considers blocking his ears while singing as "silencing the feeneyites".
He does a great job of continually discrediting himself.
-
Stop with the silly games ihsv, and get to your point already.
Not silly games at all. I have had years of experience debating with protestants and other dishonest people, Paul. This is classic, non-committal evasion. He will not come out and say one way or another.
How about you take a stab at answering it? Try to be forthright, honest, and candid. Yes or no.
No evasions, please.
Nevermind "years", I've been debating this subject probably since before you were born. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the silly cat and mouse games you are playing - I don't waste my time anymore. I've cut to the chase and compiled my arguments on baptismofdesire.com, and all Feeneyites have been completely silenced by it for years now. If you are that experienced, maybe you can be the hero and provide arguments to what's on the homepage there.
:rolleyes:
Are you going to be honest and admit you're afraid of answering the question? And that in order to avoid doing so, you cloud the issue by saying how "you've seen it all before"? If you're so experienced, why not just answer the question? Why are you dodging?
ihsv,
It's pretty funny that you think you are some kind of super interrogator with your questioning, thinking that you are somehow going to catch us off-guard, and say "Gotcha!". Again, I've been doing this a very, very long time and can't count how many times a Feeneyite starts off with the same questioning that you are. They all use the same playbook...the method you are using is OLD news. You are not going to catch anyone off-guard with it.
Here's how the conversation always goes:
1) You will argue, presenting x number of quotes, that water is required for baptism. No Catholic would dare challenge this, so any quote you present, I can tell you right now, we agree with it.
2) In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament. These quotes span the entire history of the Church and are too numerous to be ignored. You will deny all of them anyway.
3) When the dust settles, you will have presented quotes on water baptism which we agree with, and we will have presented quotes on bod/bob which you disagree with. It goes the SAME way every time.
4) Then starts the landslide of absolutely lame arguments from your side on how the popes that taught bod were not speaking infallibly, or that Doctors of the Church are not infallible, or that they've been in error all these centuries and no one noticed, or that we are taking quotes out of context, or that we have bad translations, etc., etc., etc. All I can say is, LAME and easily disproven.
5) In the end, the final crux of the matter is always the same; the Feeneyites don't know what the ordinary magisterium is, and as a consequence, refuse to believe what it teaches. You think that everything must be solemnly defined before you believe it, which is absolutely false. You Feeneyites simply need to research and learn what the ordinary magisterium is, and it will solve ALL of your mental blocks on this subject.
So please save us the endless slinging of quotes going back and forth for days on end, only to reach the same point I am saying here.
Simply awesome.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
I didn't look at the video, but judging from the way you just described things, it sounds like the heretic Dimonds spun a new twist so they could exonerate the Saints and Doctors and catechisms, but condemn modern people for not understanding them!
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
WOW! There is O% chance that anyone could refute this video. Thank you for the link.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
WOW! There is O% chance that anyone could refute this video. Thank you for the link.
Of course, another Dimondite.
Who are you Catholictrue, Peter or Fred or Michael?
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
WOW! There is O% chance that anyone could refute this video. Thank you for the link.
Of course, another Dimondite.
Who are you Catholictrue, Peter or Fred or Michael?
None of the above, but it will do your soul some good to watch it. You exhibit a lack of prudence to comment on something you have not viewed.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
WOW! There is O% chance that anyone could refute this video. Thank you for the link.
Of course, another Dimondite.
Who are you Catholictrue, Peter or Fred or Michael?
None of the above, but it will do your soul some good to watch it. You exhibit a lack of prudence to comment on something you have not viewed.
Ah, so you DO know who Catholictrue is! I will take note.
There is no imprudence to candidly give my first impression of his own explanation. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has correctly summed up the Dimond's new video.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
You say the Church doesn't teach that baptism of desire supplies the grace of the Sacrament. Please see the quote below that states otherwise. And don't bother replying with a condemnation of the Catholic Encyclopedia - as we can see in its preface, it was compiled by over 1500 bishops, priests, authors and professors across the globe, contains imprimatur, and the text below has remained in it for the last century without any condemnation from the Church. It is an extremely trustworthy reference.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT:
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
-
PaulFC,
Honestly, why do you think that in these times of crisis that desperately call for Catholic restoration, out of hundred of topics better conductive to Catholic restitution, you precisely choose to run a website promoting the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics as conversion to the True Religion was an option?.
You are doing damage to the Church. The less thing Catholics need to be hearing nowadays is that people do not necessarily have to convert to the True Faith, and enter the Church formally via water Baptism, in order to find salvation.
Cantarella,
You misunderstand the subject, and have come to a wrong conclusion because of it. There is a reason why the website quotes Church Fathers, Popes, General Councils, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, Canon Law, Catholic Encyclopedia, and other trusted Church references, all in support of baptism of desire and blood. it's because they all openly support it!
Open your eyes brother - saying I'm doing damage to the Church is also saying that all of these sources I just mentioned have also done damage to the Church. It's beyond absurdity.
That is not a response to the question at all. Why did you even bother collecting all this *supposed" pro - BOD sources and took the time to set up a website to promote it, precisely in these times? The Novus Ordo Catholics are not even half militant against the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus dogma as these CMRI sedevacantists are... If one finds a pro - BOD website, chances are very very high that it is a sedevacantist who runs it. My Opus Dei acquaintances do not have such a serious problem with Fr. Feeney or with the simple Catholic notion that one needs to be validly baptized to get to Heaven. The irony!
Can't you see that it is precisely BOD (better yet, Salvation by Implicit Desire of non-Catholics, which is what this really has become) is the very root of Vatican II Ecclesiology? It is the direct reasoning behind Religious Liberty and False Ecuмenism.
Do you feel that Fr. Feeney (and the Feeneyite communities) is a bigger threat than, let's say, Vatican II Council, therefore requiring such levels of attention?
Cantarella,
The reasoning you are trying to use here is frightening. Go look at the quotes from the Church on the homepage of baptismofdesire.com. The quotes span over 1800 years of the Church; so the teaching on BOD/BOB has absolutely NOTHING to do with Vatican II. How could you even suggest it?
You call those quotes "supposed pro-BOD" when there are about 6 popes in the list, and about 11 Doctors of the Church? I'm really starting to worry about your sanity here.
If it is possible that non-Catholics are in the state of Sanctifying Grace, that means that the Holy Ghost can dwell within the souls of them. Now, if we accept that the Holy Ghost can actually dwell on the souls of Jews, Mohammedans, pagans, even agnostics or atheists who actually are hidden Catholics (members of the Mystical Body of Christ), why should we refuse to pray with them? and what right on earth do we have to force the Catholic religion upon them?
With the acceptance of "Salvation by Implicit Desire", there can be no meaningful argument against Religious Liberty or False Ecuмenism. This type of reasoning leads to the Prayers at Assisi.
Cantarella,
Again, you don't understand the subject so you are coming to the wrong conclusions. As we know, the Church teaches that it is possible for some to be saved through invincible ignorance, but remember, a condition to being saved through invincible ignorance is that the person MUST have perfect contrition for their sins. The catechism of Trent clearly states that obtaining forgiveness of sins through perfect contrition is extremely difficult. This is why Catholic missionaries since the start of the Church have never assumed non-Catholics are saved by invincible ignorance; they instead always did everything to convert others to Catholicism, even if it meant giving their lives doing so. Invincible ignorance is never assumed, and that is why conversion is always the aim, according to the command, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matthew 16:15
Here is what a traditional Catholic Bishop wrote on invincible ignorance a few years ago:
Invincible Ignorance
"In regard to invincible ignorance, one is capable only of establishing the principles. Where the principles take effect only God knows. But in principle there is no limit to it.
What is necessary and sufficient for invincible ignorance is that, through no fault of his own, the non-Catholic (and this applies to anyone who fits that description) has never had the truth of the Catholic Faith sufficiently explained or presented to him. That someone might know of the Catholic religion, or even what it teaches, does not qualify for having it sufficiently proposed to him. He must receive a presentation in which he perceives that the Catholic Faith is in fact the religion revealed by God. The requirements for this presentation can vary from person to person.
For salvation, the person in invincible ignorance must believe, by divine faith, at least some revealed truths. Which ones these are is disputed among theologians. Furthermore, he must have perfect contrition for any mortal sins which he has committed. He must also, by divine charity, desire to fulfill all the precepts of God. In so doing, he fulfills the condition of desiring and intending to receive, implicitly, the baptism of water.
These principles apply to all non-Catholics. But, as I said, who achieves baptism of desire, and who achieves salvation, is utterly out of our reach.
Never forget that justification and salvation are primarily the work of God's grace. If God wants someone, He will bring him in whatever way He wills.
This doctrine does not in any way justify the Novus Ordo ecuмenism, which sees false religions as being means of salvation. They are not means of salvation, but means of damnation. This is true, first of all, because they were founded by men, and therefore have no title to be instruments of God. In fact, as religions they do not even exist. Imagine a company claiming to be an airline, but which has no airplanes. So false religions claim to be religions, but have no means of applying the grace of God to men, since they are mere human upstarts with no charter from God to exist. Secondly, if one embraces their heresies and moral tenets, he goes to hell. They are trains bound for hell. You get on it, you go to hell. Only those who are in invincible ignorance of their damning effect are immune from guilt for being on the wrong train.
The Catholic Church is the unique means of salvation. One must belong to the Catholic Church in some way, at the very least by implicit desire, in order to obtain salvation."
The above was written by Bishop Sanborn.
-
The above was written by Bishop Sanborn.
The above demonstrates that +Sanborn still exhibits the effects of the priestly formation he received at the Novus Ordo seminary he graduated cuм laude from.
It is common among those who've gotten their priestly formation in the NO to undermines the dogma EENS as he does.
-
Cantarella,
Again, you don't understand the subject so you are coming to the wrong conclusions. As we know, the Church teaches that it is possible for some to be saved through invincible ignorance, but remember, a condition to being saved through invincible ignorance is that the person MUST have perfect contrition for their sins. The catechism of Trent clearly states that obtaining forgiveness of sins through perfect contrition is extremely difficult. This is why Catholic missionaries since the start of the Church have never assumed non-Catholics are saved by invincible ignorance; they instead always did everything to convert others to Catholicism, even if it meant giving their lives doing so. Invincible ignorance is never assumed, and that is why conversion is always the aim, according to the command, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matthew 16:15
Here is what a traditional Catholic Bishop wrote on invincible ignorance a few years ago:
Invincible Ignorance
"In regard to invincible ignorance, one is capable only of establishing the principles. Where the principles take effect only God knows. But in principle there is no limit to it.
What is necessary and sufficient for invincible ignorance is that, through no fault of his own, the non-Catholic (and this applies to anyone who fits that description) has never had the truth of the Catholic Faith sufficiently explained or presented to him. That someone might know of the Catholic religion, or even what it teaches, does not qualify for having it sufficiently proposed to him. He must receive a presentation in which he perceives that the Catholic Faith is in fact the religion revealed by God. The requirements for this presentation can vary from person to person.
For salvation, the person in invincible ignorance must believe, by divine faith, at least some revealed truths. Which ones these are is disputed among theologians. Furthermore, he must have perfect contrition for any mortal sins which he has committed. He must also, by divine charity, desire to fulfill all the precepts of God. In so doing, he fulfills the condition of desiring and intending to receive, implicitly, the baptism of water.
These principles apply to all non-Catholics. But, as I said, who achieves baptism of desire, and who achieves salvation, is utterly out of our reach.
Never forget that justification and salvation are primarily the work of God's grace. If God wants someone, He will bring him in whatever way He wills.
This doctrine does not in any way justify the Novus Ordo ecuмenism, which sees false religions as being means of salvation. They are not means of salvation, but means of damnation. This is true, first of all, because they were founded by men, and therefore have no title to be instruments of God. In fact, as religions they do not even exist. Imagine a company claiming to be an airline, but which has no airplanes. So false religions claim to be religions, but have no means of applying the grace of God to men, since they are mere human upstarts with no charter from God to exist. Secondly, if one embraces their heresies and moral tenets, he goes to hell. They are trains bound for hell. You get on it, you go to hell. Only those who are in invincible ignorance of their damning effect are immune from guilt for being on the wrong train.
The Catholic Church is the unique means of salvation. One must belong to the Catholic Church in some way, at the very least by implicit desire, in order to obtain salvation."
The above was written by Bishop Sanborn.
This is the solemn dogma of EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS in its dogmatic purity:
* "There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
* "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
* " The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).
And this is how Modernism operates:
The Catholic dogma of salvation goes from applicable to every human creature to:
Only those who know
and
those who do not know, are excused.
Bishop Sanborn adds yet another twist to it: those who do not know, are excused, if they "never had the truth of our Holy Religion sufficiently explained or presented to him; so notice, just any basic presentation of the Faith will not do anymore, it must be sufficiently proposed to him. "He must receive a presentation in which he perceives that the Catholic Faith is in fact the religion revealed by God"...In other words, almost everyone classifies for the visible exception to the dogma. I wonder, who in their right minds from those in false religions would not convert to Catholicism if they knew for sure that the Catholic Church is the only Ark of salvation.
On and on this modernist dilution of Catholic Truth is permitted, this liberal linguistic deconstruct of dogmatic statements, until we arrive to the possibility that the nice neo-pagan next door could also be saved though the Church (not in the Church, but only "through") without even explicit Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who for all purposes, died in vain. To compromise in a single point of Catholic doctrine is to destroy it all. Welcome to Vatican II Rahnerian theology!
Now please present a dogmatic statement of the highest reputation like those above, in which the Church teaches that there is possible remission of sins for the unbaptized.
-
Cantarella, do you view the following two quotes to be against solemn dogma?
Summa Theologica[/i]]"In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (Article 2). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time...."
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
-
As stated above (a. 1, ad 2; q. 68, a. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but aferwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa q.69, a.4, ad 2)
Thus says nothing about whether the sacramental character of baptism bestows grace. It doesn't.
On the contrary, in the section on baptism he explicitly teaches that the sacramental character is a SIGN and a POWER. It is a SIGN of the sanctifying grace received and a power that resides in the power of the soul fitting it for divine worship, to receive the sacraments.
For baptism to be the absolute necessity without exception that it is claimed to be it would have to be shown that the SIGN of baptism, the Sacramental Character, is the necessary medium through which sanctifying grace MUST be conveyed.
On the other hand, the very fact you admit that sanctifying grace could be had by BOD is proof that the sacramental character can be had virtually as opposed to actually. Insofar as the character is a sign, it signifies reception of grace. But insofar as grace can be had without the character, the character is had virtually, in that you have what the sign itself signifies.
-
Cantarella, do you view the following two quotes to be against solemn dogma?
Summa Theologica[/i]]"In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (Article 2). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time...."
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
You act as if both quotes are teaching a BOD, but this particular angle BODer's use for debate, like all the others they use has already been indisputably answered and thoroughly beaten to death. :fryingpan:
Now if you really want to accomplish something worthwhile, start a thread promoting and defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation. Make that your goal.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
WOW! There is O% chance that anyone could refute this video. Thank you for the link.
Of course, another Dimondite.
Who are you Catholictrue, Peter or Fred or Michael?
None of the above, but it will do your soul some good to watch it. You exhibit a lack of prudence to comment on something you have not viewed.
Ah, so you DO know who Catholictrue is! I will take note.
There is no imprudence to candidly give my first impression of his own explanation. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has correctly summed up the Dimond's new video.
Yesterday was the first time that I had seen this video. Now, since I have always held the position that BoD was possible only for catechmens (no invincible ignorance, etc...), I think the Dimonds would call me a heretic. This video taught me a lot.
-
"Simply awesome" if you are blind like Paul FC.
Paul wrote: >>>In reply we will present x number of quotes from the Church stating that baptism of blood/desire, while not Sacraments of themselves, can supply the grace of the Sacrament.>>>
Your lack of familiarity with the arguments that disprove your claims is remarkable. Your willingness to repeat things that are not true is incredible. If you understood the issue at all, and the arguments that refute your position, you would realize that St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and the modern theologians who favor baptism of desire teach that IT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of Baptism, as the Church has defined, completely regenerates the soul and removes all the temporal punishment due to sin. According to theologians who favored 'baptism of desire,' 'baptism of desire' does not do that. That means that the so-called 'baptism of desire', even according to those who taught the idea, DOES NOT supply the grace of baptism.
That's the fatal flaw in the false theory, as this video explains, because one must have the grace of baptism (with all temporal sin remitted) to even be justified, as Trent declared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
So, you are uttering falsehood and nonsense. You are misrepresenting what those who favored BOD taught, as well as contradicting Catholic teaching by favoring a position (i.e. BOD) that one can be initially justified without being regenerated. That's a clear proof that BOD, your position, your feeble arguments, and your 'understanding' of these matters are all wrong.
And no, you don't believe in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
You say the Church doesn't teach that baptism of desire supplies the grace of the Sacrament. Please see the quote below that states otherwise. And don't bother replying with a condemnation of the Catholic Encyclopedia - as we can see in its preface, it was compiled by over 1500 bishops, priests, authors and professors across the globe, contains imprimatur, and the text below has remained in it for the last century without any condemnation from the Church. It is an extremely trustworthy reference.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT:
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
This is why you need to watch the video link. The grace that remits sin ONLY, but does not remit the temporal punishment due to sins is not the grace of REBIRTH, as the video points out. I just found this out yesterday.
The Council of Trent infallibly TEACHES that justification cannot happen unless a person is reborn, and in order to be reborn all sins must be remitted along with the remission of all temporal punishment due to those sins. This (the remission of temporal punishment due to sin) does not occur when you look at the teachings of BoD form the leading fathers and doctors on the subject.
Please consult the video.
-
Just by way of update, I have not forgotten this thread. My real life comes first. I will try to return over the next few days.
-
Just by way of update, I have not forgotten this thread. My real life comes first. I will try to return over the next few days.
Extra assurance, I won't forget either.
-
The Council of Trent infallibly TEACHES that justification cannot happen unless a person is reborn, and in order to be reborn all sins must be remitted along with the remission of all temporal punishment due to those sins. This (the remission of temporal punishment due to sin) does not occur when you look at the teachings of BoD form the leading fathers and doctors on the subject.
Why then do we see repeated mention from authoritative Church sources that the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire? Certainly the Council of Trent doesn't teach contrary to itself.
St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".
St. Alphonsus Liguori also states, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...".
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent".
The quote from the Letter of the Holy Office also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..."
-
The Council of Trent infallibly TEACHES that justification cannot happen unless a person is reborn, and in order to be reborn all sins must be remitted along with the remission of all temporal punishment due to those sins. This (the remission of temporal punishment due to sin) does not occur when you look at the teachings of BoD form the leading fathers and doctors on the subject.
Why then do we see repeated mention from authoritative Church sources that the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire? Certainly the Council of Trent doesn't teach contrary to itself.
St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".
St. Alphonsus Liguori also states, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...".
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent".
The quote from the Letter of the Holy Office also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..."
Have you watched the video?
If yes, what would be the problem?
If no, it would be a good idea to watch it, and your question will be answered.
-
The Council of Trent infallibly TEACHES that justification cannot happen unless a person is reborn, and in order to be reborn all sins must be remitted along with the remission of all temporal punishment due to those sins. This (the remission of temporal punishment due to sin) does not occur when you look at the teachings of BoD form the leading fathers and doctors on the subject.
Why then do we see repeated mention from authoritative Church sources that the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire? Certainly the Council of Trent doesn't teach contrary to itself.
St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".
St. Alphonsus Liguori also states, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...".
We do not know why these learned saints said what they said, but we do know they are not the Church, rather, they are subject to Her judgements, not the other way around.
Session 6, Chapter 4 teaches that we are to actually be baptized "as it is written, unless a man be born again of water...." John 3:5, - which is something impossible to accomplish without the sacrament.
Session 6, Chapter 7 states; "Of this Justification....the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified".
Did the saints read Ch 7? Did they read the canons about the sacrament? Just referencing these two things demonstrate the Church's disagreement with these saints - or the saint's disagreement with the Church on this subject.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent".
This statement should be a red flag - a BOD is not a doctrine at all, nor is it set forth clearly by Trent. If it were a doctrine and if it were clearly set forth by Trent, then everyone could agree on what it actually is - but the fact is that rarely can two BODers, even avid BODers ever agree on exactly what it even is, when it happens or who it's supposed to apply too. - That's a doctrine clearly set forth from Trent? The only thing clear about it that all BODers agree on is the recipient attains salvation via his own presumed desire - he doesn't even need to desire the sacrament or know that the sacrament ever even existed!
The quote from the Letter of the Holy Office also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..."
Another red flag - The Letter is not a teaching of the Church, it is a foundational teaching of the new church.
Same old arguments. Nothing new.
What would be something new is if one of the BODers could actually get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as often and as stringently as they promote a BOD. Now THAT would be something to see.
-
The Council of Trent infallibly TEACHES that justification cannot happen unless a person is reborn, and in order to be reborn all sins must be remitted along with the remission of all temporal punishment due to those sins. This (the remission of temporal punishment due to sin) does not occur when you look at the teachings of BoD form the leading fathers and doctors on the subject.
Why then do we see repeated mention from authoritative Church sources that the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire? Certainly the Council of Trent doesn't teach contrary to itself.
St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".
St. Alphonsus Liguori also states, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...".
We do not know why these learned saints said what they said, but we do know they are not the Church, rather, they are subject to Her judgements, not the other way around.
Session 6, Chapter 4 teaches that we are to actually be baptized "as it is written, unless a man be born again of water...." John 3:5, - which is something impossible to accomplish without the sacrament.
Session 6, Chapter 7 states; "Of this Justification....the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified".
Did the saints read Ch 7? Did they read the canons about the sacrament? Just referencing these two things demonstrate the Church's disagreement with these saints - or the saint's disagreement with the Church on this subject.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent".
This statement should be a red flag - a BOD is not a doctrine at all, nor is it set forth clearly by Trent. If it were a doctrine and if it were clearly set forth by Trent, then everyone could agree on what it actually is - but the fact is that rarely can two BODers, even avid BODers ever agree on exactly what it even is, when it happens or who it's supposed to apply too. - That's a doctrine clearly set forth from Trent? The only thing clear about it that all BODers agree on is the recipient attains salvation via his own presumed desire - he doesn't even need to desire the sacrament or know that the sacrament ever even existed!
The quote from the Letter of the Holy Office also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..."
Another red flag - The Letter is not a teaching of the Church, it is a foundational teaching of the new church.
Same old arguments. Nothing new.
What would be something new is if one of the BODers could actually get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as often and as stringently as they promote a BOD. Now THAT would be something to see.
......................................................................................(http://i.imgur.com/0UQrTWj.jpg)
-
Just by way of update, I have not forgotten this thread. My real life comes first. I will try to return over the next few days.
Extra assurance, I won't forget either.
BUMP.
-
Just by way of update, I have not forgotten this thread. My real life comes first. I will try to return over the next few days.
It's been a month, and a no-show for the Feeneyite ihsv.
-
JUST FYI, Jesus Christ himself is not impressed by Feeneyism.
"We don't know if anyone has ever been saved by baptism of desire!"
I got one for you right here: Ever heard of Fr. Herman Cohen? He was a Jєωιѕн convert to the faith and a Carmelite. HIs mother died an apparently unrepentant Jewess without ever being baptized. He confided his great sorrow to the Cure de Ars who told him to HOPE!
Text of the letter prophesied to Father Hermann Cohen by the Curé of Ars.
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html
Father Hermann Cohen's mother died
without receiving Holy Baptism.
In the eyes of the unwise
'she died as an unconverted Jewess'
in spite of the many prayers offered for her by her priestly son.
I have translated the following from his life
which will be of interest for all of us
who pray for souls that seem to live and die
without the grace of conversion.
Note that Fr. Hermann
had consecrated his mother to Our Lady
hundreds of times and offered many prayers for her salvation;
he never lost hope in his mother's cause.
Rev. Fr. Hermann Cohen, O.C.D.
The last moments for Mrs. Cohen arrived on 13 December 1855. Father Hermann was preaching Advent in Lyons at the time and he announced this sad news to his friend in these terms:
"God has struck a terrible blow to my heart. My poor mother is dead ... and I remain in incertitude! However we have so much prayed that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. ..."
We can easily imagine the pain of Father Hermann in learning of the death of his mother. He had so much prayed and so much had prayers said for her conversion, and she came to appear before the tribunal of God without having received holy Baptism! ...
" I also have a mother," would he write one day, "I have left her to follow Jesus Christ, she no longer calls me her 'good son'. Already her hair is silvered, already her brow is furrowed, and I am afraid to see her die. Oh! no I would not like to see her die before loving Jesus Christ, and already for many years I await for my mother that which Monica awaited for Augustine..."
God seemed to have despised all his prayers and rejected his loving and legitimate desires. His faith and his love were put through a harsh trial. Nevertheless, if his sorrow was deep, his hope in the infinite goodness of God would not allow itself to be struck down. ...
Saint Jean Marie Vianney
Curé of Ars
A short time later, he confided to the Curé of Ars his disquiet about the death of his poor mother who died without the grace of Baptism. "Hope!" replied the man of God, "hope; you will receive one day, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception a letter that will bring you great consolation."
Six years waiting.
These words were almost forgotten, when, on the 8th December 1861, six years after the death of his mother, a Father of the Company of Jesus handed to Father Hermann the following letter.
(The person who wrote this letter died in the odor of sanctity; she was well known in the religious and ascetical world by her written works on the Eucharist.)
The letter read:
On the 18th October, after Holy Communion, I found myself in one of those moments of intimate union with Our Lord, where he made me so feel his presence in the sacrament of His love that Faith seemed no longer necessary to believe him there.
After a short time, He had me hear His voice and He wanted to give me some explanations relative to a conversation that I had had the night before.
I remember that, in that conversation, one of my friends had manifested her surprise that Our Lord, who has promised to accord everything to prayer, had however remained deaf to those of Reverend Father Hermann who had so many times addressed Him to obtain the conversion of his mother; her surprise went almost as far as discontentment, and I had had difficulty in having her understand that we must adore the justice of God and not to seek to penetrate its secrets.
I dared to ask of my Jesus how it was that He, who was goodness itself, had been able to resist the prayers of Father Hermann, and not grant the conversion of his mother.
This was His (Our Lord's) response:
Why does Anna always want to sound the secrets of my justice and why does she seek to penetrate mysteries that she cannot comprehend?
Tell her that I do not owe my grace to anyone, that I give it to whom I please and that in acting in this way I do not cease to be just, and justice itself.
But that she may know that, rather than not keep the promises that I have made to prayer, I will upset heaven and earth, and that every prayer that has my glory and the salvation of souls for object is always heard when it is clothed in the necessary qualities.
He added: "And to prove to you this truth, I willingly make known that which passed at the moment of the death of the mother of Father Hermann".
My Jesus then enlightened me with a ray of His divine light and had me understand or rather to see in Him that which I want to try to relate.
At the moment where the mother of Father Hermann was on the point of rendering her last breath; at the moment that she seemed deprived of awareness, almost without life; Mary, our good Mother, presented Herself before Her Divine Son, and prostrate at His feet, She said to Him: "Pardon and mercy, o my Son! for this soul who is going to perish. Yet another instant and she will be lost, lost for eternity. I beseech you, do for the mother of my servant Hermann, that which you would like to be done for your own, if She was in her place and if you were in his. The soul of his mother is his most precious good; he has consecrated her to me a thousand times; he has consecrated her to the tenderness and solicitude of my heart. Could I suffer her to perish? No, no, this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance, as the price of your blood and of my sufferings at the foot of your Cross."
Hardly had the sacred suppliant ceased speaking, when a strong, powerful grace, came forth from the source of all graces, from the adorable Heart of our Jesus, and came to enlighten the soul of the poor dying Jewess; instantly triumphing over her stubbornness and resistances.
This soul immediately turned herself with loving confidence towards Him whose mercy had pursued her as far as the arms of death and said to Him: "O Jesus, God of the Christians, God whom my son adores, I believe, I hope in Thee, have pity on me."
In this cry, heard by God alone and which came from the intimate depths of the heart of the dying woman, were enclosed the sincere sorrow for her obstination and for her sins, the desire of baptism, the express will to receive it and to live according to the rules and precepts of our holy religion, if she had been able to return to life.
This leap of faith and hope in Jesus was the last sentiment of that soul; it was made at the moment when she brought towards the throne of the divine mercy. Breaking away the weak bonds which held her to her mortal casing, she fell at the feet of Him who had been her Saviour (a moment) before being her Judge."
After having showed me all these things, Our Lord added:
"Make this known to Father Hermann; it is a consolation that I wish to accord to his long sorrows, so that he will bless, and have blessed everywhere, the goodness of the heart of my Mother and Her power over mine."
Totally unknown to Reverend Father Hermann, the poor invalid who has just now penned these lines is happy to think that she has perhaps spread a little consolation and balm on the still bleeding wound of the heart of this son and priest. She dares to ask the alms of his fervent prayers, and she likes to believe that he will not refuse to one, who, even though unknown to him, is united to him by the sacred bonds of the same faith and of the same hopes. ..."
What appears to add great authority to this letter, is that it had been announced six years in advance by the venerable Cure of Ars.
End of translation.
(pp. 126 - 129, Vie du R.P. Hermann, en religion Augustine-Marie du T.S. Sacrament, Carme Dechausse, par M. l'Abbe Charles Sylvain, Paris, 1883.
From the French life of Rev. Father Hermann, in religion Augustin-Marie of the Most Holy Sacrament, Discalced Carmelite, by Fr. Canon Charles Sylvain, Paris 1883.)
Publised with the approbation of and recommendation of His Grandeur Mgr. gαy, Bishop of D'Anthedon, Auxiliary of His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitier, 4 Dec. 1880
and of His Grace Mgr. de la Bouillerie, the Archbishop of Perga, Coadjutor of Bordeaux, 23 July 1881
of His Lordship Mgr. Adolphe-Louis Perraud, Bishop of Autun and Member of the French Academy, 8 March, 1882
and of the Most Reverend Father Luc of St. John of the Cross, Father General of the Discalced Carmelites, 4 May, 1880)
There it is, there you go. The saints know nothing of Feeneyis, and not all who enter heaven pass through water, though they sincerely desire it implicitly when they make an act of faith!
-
JUST FYI, Jesus Christ himself is not impressed by Feeneyism.
"We don't know if anyone has ever been saved by baptism of desire!"
I got one for you right here: Ever heard of Fr. Herman Cohen? He was a Jєωιѕн convert to the faith and a Carmelite. HIs mother died an apparently unrepentant Jewess without ever being baptized. He confided his great sorrow to the Cure de Ars who told him to HOPE!
Text of the letter prophesied to Father Hermann Cohen by the Curé of Ars.
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html
Father Hermann Cohen's mother died
without receiving Holy Baptism.
In the eyes of the unwise
'she died as an unconverted Jewess'
in spite of the many prayers offered for her by her priestly son.
I have translated the following from his life
which will be of interest for all of us
who pray for souls that seem to live and die
without the grace of conversion.
Note that Fr. Hermann
had consecrated his mother to Our Lady
hundreds of times and offered many prayers for her salvation;
he never lost hope in his mother's cause.
Rev. Fr. Hermann Cohen, O.C.D.
The last moments for Mrs. Cohen arrived on 13 December 1855. Father Hermann was preaching Advent in Lyons at the time and he announced this sad news to his friend in these terms:
"God has struck a terrible blow to my heart. My poor mother is dead ... and I remain in incertitude! However we have so much prayed that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. ..."
We can easily imagine the pain of Father Hermann in learning of the death of his mother. He had so much prayed and so much had prayers said for her conversion, and she came to appear before the tribunal of God without having received holy Baptism! ...
" I also have a mother," would he write one day, "I have left her to follow Jesus Christ, she no longer calls me her 'good son'. Already her hair is silvered, already her brow is furrowed, and I am afraid to see her die. Oh! no I would not like to see her die before loving Jesus Christ, and already for many years I await for my mother that which Monica awaited for Augustine..."
God seemed to have despised all his prayers and rejected his loving and legitimate desires. His faith and his love were put through a harsh trial. Nevertheless, if his sorrow was deep, his hope in the infinite goodness of God would not allow itself to be struck down. ...
Saint Jean Marie Vianney
Curé of Ars
A short time later, he confided to the Curé of Ars his disquiet about the death of his poor mother who died without the grace of Baptism. "Hope!" replied the man of God, "hope; you will receive one day, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception a letter that will bring you great consolation."
Six years waiting.
These words were almost forgotten, when, on the 8th December 1861, six years after the death of his mother, a Father of the Company of Jesus handed to Father Hermann the following letter.
(The person who wrote this letter died in the odor of sanctity; she was well known in the religious and ascetical world by her written works on the Eucharist.)
The letter read:
On the 18th October, after Holy Communion, I found myself in one of those moments of intimate union with Our Lord, where he made me so feel his presence in the sacrament of His love that Faith seemed no longer necessary to believe him there.
After a short time, He had me hear His voice and He wanted to give me some explanations relative to a conversation that I had had the night before.
I remember that, in that conversation, one of my friends had manifested her surprise that Our Lord, who has promised to accord everything to prayer, had however remained deaf to those of Reverend Father Hermann who had so many times addressed Him to obtain the conversion of his mother; her surprise went almost as far as discontentment, and I had had difficulty in having her understand that we must adore the justice of God and not to seek to penetrate its secrets.
I dared to ask of my Jesus how it was that He, who was goodness itself, had been able to resist the prayers of Father Hermann, and not grant the conversion of his mother.
This was His (Our Lord's) response:
Why does Anna always want to sound the secrets of my justice and why does she seek to penetrate mysteries that she cannot comprehend?
Tell her that I do not owe my grace to anyone, that I give it to whom I please and that in acting in this way I do not cease to be just, and justice itself.
But that she may know that, rather than not keep the promises that I have made to prayer, I will upset heaven and earth, and that every prayer that has my glory and the salvation of souls for object is always heard when it is clothed in the necessary qualities.
He added: "And to prove to you this truth, I willingly make known that which passed at the moment of the death of the mother of Father Hermann".
My Jesus then enlightened me with a ray of His divine light and had me understand or rather to see in Him that which I want to try to relate.
At the moment where the mother of Father Hermann was on the point of rendering her last breath; at the moment that she seemed deprived of awareness, almost without life; Mary, our good Mother, presented Herself before Her Divine Son, and prostrate at His feet, She said to Him: "Pardon and mercy, o my Son! for this soul who is going to perish. Yet another instant and she will be lost, lost for eternity. I beseech you, do for the mother of my servant Hermann, that which you would like to be done for your own, if She was in her place and if you were in his. The soul of his mother is his most precious good; he has consecrated her to me a thousand times; he has consecrated her to the tenderness and solicitude of my heart. Could I suffer her to perish? No, no, this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance, as the price of your blood and of my sufferings at the foot of your Cross."
Hardly had the sacred suppliant ceased speaking, when a strong, powerful grace, came forth from the source of all graces, from the adorable Heart of our Jesus, and came to enlighten the soul of the poor dying Jewess; instantly triumphing over her stubbornness and resistances.
This soul immediately turned herself with loving confidence towards Him whose mercy had pursued her as far as the arms of death and said to Him: "O Jesus, God of the Christians, God whom my son adores, I believe, I hope in Thee, have pity on me."
In this cry, heard by God alone and which came from the intimate depths of the heart of the dying woman, were enclosed the sincere sorrow for her obstination and for her sins, the desire of baptism, the express will to receive it and to live according to the rules and precepts of our holy religion, if she had been able to return to life.
This leap of faith and hope in Jesus was the last sentiment of that soul; it was made at the moment when she brought towards the throne of the divine mercy. Breaking away the weak bonds which held her to her mortal casing, she fell at the feet of Him who had been her Saviour (a moment) before being her Judge."
After having showed me all these things, Our Lord added:
"Make this known to Father Hermann; it is a consolation that I wish to accord to his long sorrows, so that he will bless, and have blessed everywhere, the goodness of the heart of my Mother and Her power over mine."
Totally unknown to Reverend Father Hermann, the poor invalid who has just now penned these lines is happy to think that she has perhaps spread a little consolation and balm on the still bleeding wound of the heart of this son and priest. She dares to ask the alms of his fervent prayers, and she likes to believe that he will not refuse to one, who, even though unknown to him, is united to him by the sacred bonds of the same faith and of the same hopes. ..."
What appears to add great authority to this letter, is that it had been announced six years in advance by the venerable Cure of Ars.
End of translation.
(pp. 126 - 129, Vie du R.P. Hermann, en religion Augustine-Marie du T.S. Sacrament, Carme Dechausse, par M. l'Abbe Charles Sylvain, Paris, 1883.
From the French life of Rev. Father Hermann, in religion Augustin-Marie of the Most Holy Sacrament, Discalced Carmelite, by Fr. Canon Charles Sylvain, Paris 1883.)
Publised with the approbation of and recommendation of His Grandeur Mgr. gαy, Bishop of D'Anthedon, Auxiliary of His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitier, 4 Dec. 1880
and of His Grace Mgr. de la Bouillerie, the Archbishop of Perga, Coadjutor of Bordeaux, 23 July 1881
of His Lordship Mgr. Adolphe-Louis Perraud, Bishop of Autun and Member of the French Academy, 8 March, 1882
and of the Most Reverend Father Luc of St. John of the Cross, Father General of the Discalced Carmelites, 4 May, 1880)
There it is, there you go. The saints know nothing of Feeneyis, and not all who enter heaven pass through water, though they sincerely desire it implicitly when they make an act of faith!
Someone said that the sacraments were made for man by God, but that God is not bound by them. In other words, God does not need to baptize us, His grace is sufficient.
People can be converted on their death bed, but it is advisable not to wait until the very last moment. If we resist God's grace, then our hearts can be hardened against God. In the Divine Office (1962), we pray:
If today you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your hearts.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
It's been 25 months, still a no show for BODers as none of them can get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
It's been 25 months, still a no show for BODers as none of them can get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
Does this surprise you? It's because they don't believe Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. At least 99% of them don't. There's a way that one could make BoD consistent with this teaching, and I've pointed this out to them in charity, but they refuse to adopt it. Consequently, most of them are (material) heretics who deny the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Most of them are also Pelagians. There have been one or two here on CathInfo who have carefully walked the line with BoD without sliding into heresy.
-
Someone said that the sacraments were made for man by God, but that God is not bound by them. In other words, God does not need to baptize us, His grace is sufficient.
Unfortunately you've been taken in by the crap pop theology, or pseudo-theology, here. Most of these dumb sayings sound good but are logically fallacious. It's never been a question of what God is bound by but a question of what God has bound us by. God has laid out conditions for salvation with which He has bound us. What He has revealed to us, as has been taught dogmatically by the Council of Trent, is that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. He has not revealed anything other than this. BoD is speculation only.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
It's been 25 months, still a no show for BODers as none of them can get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
Does this surprise you? It's because they don't believe Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. At least 99% of them don't. There's a way that one could make BoD consistent with this teaching, and I've pointed this out to them in charity, but they refuse to adopt it. Consequently, most of them are (material) heretics who deny the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Most of them are also Pelagians. There have been one or two here on CathInfo who have carefully walked the line with BoD without sliding into heresy.
No, it really doesn't surprise me, although I have been hoping for two years that some honest BODer would prove me wrong by actually promoting the necessity of the sacraments - any one of the sacraments, but all they keep doing is reinforcing the fact that, like Trent's catechism teaches, they despise the sacraments. No one can faithfully defend that which they despise, which is the reason no BODer can defend the sacraments.
Then there's sede BODer McCork who openly reject's the words of Our Lord, hence he rejects the sacrament of baptism. I don't know what faith it is, but it not Catholic.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
-
Then there's sede BODer McCork who openly reject's the words of Our Lord, hence he rejects the sacrament of baptism. I don't know what faith it is, but it not Catholic.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
Case closed against Nado McCork. Directly contradicting Our Lord. It doesn't get more heretical than that. And yet these Cushingites have the audacity to call us heretics simply because we take the words of Our Lord and the Church's dogmatic teachings at face value. McCork doesn't even bother to apply distinctions, the usual way in which the doubters try to undermine dogma.
If McCork is interested and happens to be of good will, then I can explain to him how one might hold to a belief in BoD while avoiding the heresy of rejecting the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. What say you, McCork? I'm offering to let you cling to your BoD while charitably correcting your heresy.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
It's been 25 months, still a no show for BODers as none of them can get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
I will do it Stubborn, just clarify the rules and expectations in some detail please. Provide a statement or specific opinion which we have to counter for greater clarity too please.
-
Will do, but I have real work to do at the moment so give me a little time, 30- 90 minutes or so.
-
It's been two years since I challenged any BODer out there to start a thread on the absolute necessity unto salvation of one of the sacraments and champion the defense of that sacrament for the life of the thread.
To date, not one BODer has taken me up on this challenge. I maintain that for a BODer to even think about doing such a thing is as repulsive to them as it would be for me to start a thread about a BOD and champion the defense of it - so for the last two years, the BODers just keep proving me to be right.
So, I will take his challenge
It's been 25 months, still a no show for BODers as none of them can get themselves to start a thread promoting the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
I will do it Stubborn, just clarify the rules and expectations in some detail please. Provide a statement or specific opinion which we have to counter for greater clarity too please.
Ok Gregory, about 2 years ago, I made a this post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60&num=1) which I think is self explanatory in the quote below.
In a nutshell, no one disputes that a BOD is not a sacrament, Trent says the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation (though all the sacraments are not necessary for every individual), so all I ask is for a thread promoting the necessity unto salvation of any one of the sacraments. I ask that you to champion this endeavor for the life of the thread.
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
Ok, I should have something for you this evening. I am on pacific time so about 8 my time.
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
Ok, I should have something for you this evening. I am on pacific time so about 8 my time.
You have to realize, Gregory, that Stubborn has expressed the challenge in a way that is misleading. The following is basically what he challenged:
1. 'Prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
But that is not really what the challenge is. The challenge Stubborn gives REALLY is:
2. 'Convince me that you prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
These are entirely two different challenges. The heart of the challenge here is to convince "Stubborn" to believe something else he already thinks is what the Church teaches, and what is worse, the stubborn one will be the judge of your success! Your challenge is to overcome stubborness; to overcome something you have no control over, and that is....
....Stubborn doesn't accept that the Church's magisterium teaches that baptism of desire is a PART of the Sacrament of Baptism, but not a Sacrament itself. Stubborn will deny it left and right, and whatever quotes you give from the Church he will deny they are from the magisterium and claim they are "out of context". If the latter, he will refuse to explain how it is out of context.
It is easy to prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone, and it quite another thing to crack the nut.
Gregory, considering that you yourself do not really understand the magisterium, you are likely to just succuмb and change another one of your positions.
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
Ok, I should have something for you this evening. I am on pacific time so about 8 my time.
You have to realize, Gregory, that Stubborn has expressed the challenge in a way that is misleading. The following is basically what he challenged:
1. 'Prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
But that is not really what the challenge is. The challenge Stubborn gives REALLY is:
2. 'Convince me that you prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
These are entirely two different challenges. The heart of the challenge here is to convince "Stubborn" to believe something else he already thinks is what the Church teaches, and what is worse, the stubborn one will be the judge of your success! Your challenge is to overcome stubborness; to overcome something you have no control over, and that is....
....Stubborn doesn't accept that the Church's magisterium teaches that baptism of desire is a PART of the Sacrament of Baptism, but not a Sacrament itself. Stubborn will deny it left and right, and whatever quotes you give from the Church he will deny they are from the magisterium and claim they are "out of context". If the latter, he will refuse to explain how it is out of context.
It is easy to prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone, and it quite another thing to crack the nut.
Gregory, considering that you yourself do not really understand the magisterium, you are likely to just succuмb and change another one of your positions.
Please, I am not a member of a Church who doesn't even HAVE THE CAPACITY to exercise its magisterium when the MAGISTERIUM is the essence of what it MEANS to be rock! The Sedevacantist house is built on sand. Bishop with no legal right to rule and no legal right to teach and no legal right to exercise the magisterium not united to any head.
THAT'S the perfect society established by Christ????
That's a manmade conglomerate.
Besides, I have been down the Feeneyite road before. For me it came up empty handed. Too many denials of established principles like implicit faith and grace not necessarily ties to the sacrament and not understanding WHAT the sacramental character of baptism does, not being sanctifying grace itself, but a SIGN of having received it.
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
Ok, I should have something for you this evening. I am on pacific time so about 8 my time.
You have to realize, Gregory, that Stubborn has expressed the challenge in a way that is misleading. The following is basically what he challenged:
1. 'Prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
But that is not really what the challenge is. The challenge Stubborn gives REALLY is:
2. 'Convince me that you prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
These are entirely two different challenges. The heart of the challenge here is to convince "Stubborn" to believe something else he already thinks is what the Church teaches, and what is worse, the stubborn one will be the judge of your success! Your challenge is to overcome stubborness; to overcome something you have no control over, and that is....
....Stubborn doesn't accept that the Church's magisterium teaches that baptism of desire is a PART of the Sacrament of Baptism, but not a Sacrament itself. Stubborn will deny it left and right, and whatever quotes you give from the Church he will deny they are from the magisterium and claim they are "out of context". If the latter, he will refuse to explain how it is out of context.
It is easy to prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone, and it quite another thing to crack the nut.
Gregory, considering that you yourself do not really understand the magisterium, you are likely to just succuмb and change another one of your positions.
Please, I am not a member of a Church who doesn't even HAVE THE CAPACITY to exercise its magisterium when the MAGISTERIUM is the essence of what it MEANS to be rock! The Sedevacantist house is built on sand. Bishop with no legal right to rule and no legal right to teach and no legal right to exercise the magisterium not united to any head.
THAT'S the perfect society established by Christ????
That's a manmade conglomerate.
Besides, I have been down the Feeneyite road before. For me it came up empty handed. Too many denials of established principles like implicit faith and grace not necessarily ties to the sacrament and not understanding WHAT the sacramental character of baptism does, not being sanctifying grace itself, but a SIGN of having received it.
Is that all you are going to do, comment on my last sentence and turn it all into an anti-sedevacantist thing?!
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
Ok, I should have something for you this evening. I am on pacific time so about 8 my time.
You have to realize, Gregory, that Stubborn has expressed the challenge in a way that is misleading. The following is basically what he challenged:
1. 'Prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
No, you cannot read. I asked quite clearly and explicitly for any BODer to defend and promote the necessity of a sacrament as per Trent's dogmatic canon. I did not ask for anyone to "prove" anything.
But that is not really what the challenge is. The challenge Stubborn gives REALLY is:
2. 'Convince me that you prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
No, it is not about what I want, it is about what the dogmatic canon actually decrees - that is the foundation - which means nothing can contradict that foundational decree, not ever, not for all eternity.
These are entirely two different challenges. The heart of the challenge here is to convince "Stubborn" to believe something else he already thinks is what the Church teaches, and what is worse, the stubborn one will be the judge of your success! Your challenge is to overcome stubborness; to overcome something you have no control over, and that is....
You are so far off base with what you think I am after. ESPECIALLY since I posted what I was after umpteen times. If you had any reading comprehension skills at all and any catholic sensus fidelium in you, you would not be able to make such ridiculous statements.
If I am out to actually prove anything at all, it is to be proven that I am wrong. I HOPE to be proven wrong - if any BODer out there can actually defend and promote the absolute necessity of the sacraments, I will have been proven wrong, THAT is what I hope for. Do you understand that?
-
:reporter: ok, but where do you want BOD to come in? Am I supposed to explain how it IS an exception to the necessity of the sacraments or how it is NOT an exception or both?
It is as I said.........
So I am looking for a sure defense of Trent's Session VII, Canon IV's; " If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous......let him be anathema." Let this be your foundation.
Did you read my above post?
Ok, I should have something for you this evening. I am on pacific time so about 8 my time.
You have to realize, Gregory, that Stubborn has expressed the challenge in a way that is misleading. The following is basically what he challenged:
1. 'Prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
No, you cannot read. I asked quite clearly and explicitly for any BODer to defend and promote the necessity of a sacrament as per Trent's dogmatic canon. I did not ask for anyone to "prove" anything.
But that is not really what the challenge is. The challenge Stubborn gives REALLY is:
2. 'Convince me that you prove that at least one sacrament is necessary for salvation for everyone.'
No, it is not about what I want, it is about what the dogmatic canon actually decrees - that is the foundation - which means nothing can contradict that foundational decree, not ever, not for all eternity.
These are entirely two different challenges. The heart of the challenge here is to convince "Stubborn" to believe something else he already thinks is what the Church teaches, and what is worse, the stubborn one will be the judge of your success! Your challenge is to overcome stubborness; to overcome something you have no control over, and that is....
You are so far off base with what you think I am after. ESPECIALLY since I posted what I was after umpteen times. If you had any reading comprehension skills at all and any catholic sensus fidelium in you, you would not be able to make such ridiculous statements.
If I am out to actually prove anything at all, it is to be proven that I am wrong. I HOPE to be proven wrong - if any BODer out there can actually defend and promote the absolute necessity of the sacraments, I will have been proven wrong, THAT is what I hope for. Do you understand that?
No, it's all about what Stubborn insists is the meaning of the Trent's dogmatic canon. You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire. Which means that you reject all other magisterial sources afterwards which say otherwise, implying they all violated a previous dogmatic decree and thus heretical.......and NOBODY IN THE WORLD NOTICED until generations came and went and the Feeneyites showed they were smarter! Your view trashes the concept of a holy Church.
Your challenge merely asks people to defend YOUR misunderstanding of that dogmatic decree. I cannot defend you misunderstanding because it is indefensible.
-
No, it's all about what Stubborn insists is the meaning of the Trent's dogmatic canon. You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire. Which means that you reject all other magisterial sources afterwards which say otherwise, implying they all violated a previous dogmatic decree and thus heretical.......and NOBODY IN THE WORLD NOTICED until generations came and went and the Feeneyites showed they were smarter! Your view trashes the concept of a holy Church.
Your challenge merely asks people to defend YOUR misunderstanding of that dogmatic decree. I cannot defend you misunderstanding because it is indefensible.
No, I asked for someone to defend and promote the necessity of the sacraments, period.
You, who've explicitly and blatantly rejected Our Lord's proposition right here in this thread, it's safe to say that no one expects you will ever understand the clear meaning of the dogmatic canon, so you have zero hope of ever defending the necessity of anything.
-
You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire.
:facepalm:
You have just disqualified yourself from any further discussion of this subject. No theologian has ever included Baptism of Desire among the Sacraments. Again, if you ask, I can explain to you how you can maintain your speculation regarding BoD while at the same time upholding the necessity of the Sacraments. If you're interested, please ask.
-
You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire.
:facepalm:
You have just disqualified yourself from any further discussion of this subject. No theologian has ever included Baptism of Desire among the Sacraments. Again, if you ask, I can explain to you how you can maintain your speculation regarding BoD while at the same time upholding the necessity of the Sacraments. If you're interested, please ask.
Excluding it from the meaning of the word "sacrament" in that decree is not the same as saying it is a sacrament. I have clearly said before that it is not a sacrament, yet a part of it.
-
You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire.
:facepalm:
You have just disqualified yourself from any further discussion of this subject. No theologian has ever included Baptism of Desire among the Sacraments. Again, if you ask, I can explain to you how you can maintain your speculation regarding BoD while at the same time upholding the necessity of the Sacraments. If you're interested, please ask.
Excluding it from the meaning of the word "sacrament" in that decree is not the same as saying it is a sacrament. I have clearly said before that it is not a sacrament, yet a part of it.
It is not "part" of it either. It's nothing on its own. If BoD can happen at all, it's merely a conduit whereby the actual Sacrament of Baptism can produce its effect on the soul.
-
You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire.
:facepalm:
You have just disqualified yourself from any further discussion of this subject. No theologian has ever included Baptism of Desire among the Sacraments. Again, if you ask, I can explain to you how you can maintain your speculation regarding BoD while at the same time upholding the necessity of the Sacraments. If you're interested, please ask.
Excluding it from the meaning of the word "sacrament" in that decree is not the same as saying it is a sacrament. I have clearly said before that it is not a sacrament, yet a part of it.
It is not "part" of it either. It's nothing on its own. If BoD can happen at all, it's merely a conduit whereby the actual Sacrament of Baptism can produce its effect on the soul.
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
-
You exclude from the meaning of the word "Sacrament" that of baptism of desire.
:facepalm:
You have just disqualified yourself from any further discussion of this subject. No theologian has ever included Baptism of Desire among the Sacraments. Again, if you ask, I can explain to you how you can maintain your speculation regarding BoD while at the same time upholding the necessity of the Sacraments. If you're interested, please ask.
Excluding it from the meaning of the word "sacrament" in that decree is not the same as saying it is a sacrament. I have clearly said before that it is not a sacrament, yet a part of it.
It is not "part" of it either. It's nothing on its own. If BoD can happen at all, it's merely a conduit whereby the actual Sacrament of Baptism can produce its effect on the soul.
No no no no.
WHICH effect? The effect of Sanctifying Grace, the impression the baptismal character or both?
If you say Sanctifying Grace you admit it can be had part from the actual reception of baptism which is the concession of the entire point.
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
But then, Sacraments are NOT necessary for Salvation, which we know it to be false, and in fact, anathematised.
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
But then, Sacraments are NOT necessary for Salvation, which we know it to be false, and in fact, anathematised.
Not sure which faith McCork professes, but he rejects the sacraments are necessary at all:
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
But then, Sacraments are NOT necessary for Salvation, which we know it to be false, and in fact, anathematised.
Not sure which faith McCork professes,
I profess the faith, for instance, of the Popes, St. Pius V, Pius IX, Leo XII and St. Pius X, whose approved catechisms state that baptism of desire is sufficient for the Sacrament when its through no fault of the recipient the Sacrament itself was not performed.
You condemn these popes and go with the religion of the excommunicate Fr. Leonard Feeney, who later allowed himself to be reconciled by the Church of Universal Salvation!
...but he rejects the sacraments are necessary at all:
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
Your Feeneyite in crime, ihsv, bailed out of the challenge with me, over 6 weeks now. Get him back here, and I will continue with him. In short, his question was culled directly from Scripture, and the magisterium is ABOVE our use of Scripture. Refer to the popes I mentioned above who all say how that Scripture is to be understood. Protestant reject the majisterium and appeal to their own understanding of Scripture....and you do, Stubborn.
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
But then, Sacraments are NOT necessary for Salvation, which we know it to be false, and in fact, anathematised.
Not sure which faith McCork professes,
I profess the faith, for instance, of the Popes, St. Pius V, Pius IX, Leo XII and St. Pius X, whose approved catechisms state that baptism of desire is sufficient for the Sacrament when its through no fault of the recipient the Sacrament itself was not performed.
You condemn these popes and go with the religion of the excommunicate Fr. Leonard Feeney, who later allowed himself to be reconciled by the Church of Universal Salvation!
You do not profess the faith of Catholic popes, except for when it suits you - even then you do not profess it, you mouth it. That much is obvious to any Catholic - think about it and you will be forced to agree. The below quote of yours is proof positive.
Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.
It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".
-
No no no no.
WHICH effect? The effect of Sanctifying Grace, the impression the baptismal character or both?
If you say Sanctifying Grace you admit it can be had part from the actual reception of baptism which is the concession of the entire point.
:facepalm:
I admit nothing because I don't believe that sanctifying grace can be had apart from the Sacrament of Baptism. Since you have difficulty comprehending, I was merely stating a manner of understanding BoD (IF you believe in it) that doesn't completely undermine Catholic dogma. I was merely stating that if you insist on clinging to your speculation about BoD then you must attribute its effects to the SACRAMENT itself, operating through the votum and that Baptism of Desire does not exist in isolation but merely taps into the graces of Baptism itself somehow.
How difficult is this to understand?
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
Except that the Magisterium has "said" nothing of the sort, Nado. Oh, by the way, you call me by my real name one more time and I'm going to PM Matthew to re-ban you for violating forum rules by re-registering under a different screen name.
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
Except that the Magisterium has "said" nothing of the sort, Nado. Oh, by the way, you call me by my real name one more time and I'm going to PM Matthew to re-ban you for violating forum rules by re-registering under a different screen name.
If you are infected by the excathedrist heresy, then the magisterium didn't say anything.
Your PMing is no business of mine. I suggest that you send a PM to the moderators to ask they remove your intro post where you yourself signed with your full real name!
-
That is not what the magisterium has said, Mr. Szijarto. Expected to be rare, but on it's own it obtains sanctifying grace, and if a person dies in that state, is saved.
Except that the Magisterium has "said" nothing of the sort, Nado. Oh, by the way, you call me by my real name one more time and I'm going to PM Matthew to re-ban you for violating forum rules by re-registering under a different screen name.
If you are infected by the excathedrist heresy, then the magisterium didn't say anything.
Your PMing is no business of mine. I suggest that you send a PM to the moderators to ask they remove your intro post where you yourself signed with your full real name!
You are something.
You were banned from here before for preaching a religion that is not Catholic, you were banned recently even from SD for doing the same thing - are you so obstinate in your errors that getting hit between the eyes with the true faith only prompts you to run farther from it?
-
No no no no.
WHICH effect? The effect of Sanctifying Grace, the impression the baptismal character or both?
If you say Sanctifying Grace you admit it can be had part from the actual reception of baptism which is the concession of the entire point.
:facepalm:
I admit nothing because I don't believe that sanctifying grace can be had apart from the Sacrament of Baptism. Since you have difficulty comprehending, I was merely stating a manner of understanding BoD (IF you believe in it) that doesn't completely undermine Catholic dogma. I was merely stating that if you insist on clinging to your speculation about BoD then you must attribute its effects to the SACRAMENT itself, operating through the votum and that Baptism of Desire does not exist in isolation but merely taps into the graces of Baptism itself somehow.
How difficult is this to understand?
Sanctifying Grace is a Grace from God. God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
Hypothetical situation: If a person is on his deathbed and cries out to God, isn't it God who is giving that person the Grace to call out to Him? And if there is no priest available on that short notice, would not the God Who has called out to this person be able to purify, illuminate, and sanctify this person?
One note, however, if a person has hardened his heart and has refused to accept God's multiple graces throughout his life due to his own pride and arrogance, then most likely, that person will not be saved on his deathbed unless a priest is present. Even then, he might reject the saving hands of a priest.
From the Divine Office (1962), translated from the Latin:
If today you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your heart.
True story follows:
A young girl of 16, who regularly attended church, had begun a relationship with a classmate in her high school. Suddenly, she became violently ill with the flu and had to be hospitalized. Her situation became dire, and her priest was called to her bed-side where she was hooked up to a ventilator, IVs, and dialysis as her kidneys were mysteriously beginning to shut down. Doctors then discovered that she had terminal childhood leukemia giving her only hours to live.
The priest called her to repentance and urged her to make her confession and receive Holy Communion, but she refused. She told the priest that she did not want to die, that she wanted to be with her boyfriend, and that a good God would not let her die.
She died without repentance because she had hardened her heart against God.
-
God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
This is a completely fallacious principle. Of course God is not constrained by the Sacraments. But God has revealed that He constrains US. Your thinking turns the Sacraments into mere helps to salvation rather than making them necessary.
This is the correct principle, which all the BoDers deny: GOD CAN BRING THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM TO ANY OF HIS ELECT.
You would have us believed that while God is not "constrained" by the Sacraments, He does in fact happen to be constrained by "impossibility".
-
God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
This is a completely fallacious principle. Of course God is not constrained by the Sacraments. But God has revealed that He constrains US. Your thinking turns the Sacraments into mere helps to salvation rather than making them necessary.
This is the correct principle, which all the BoDers deny: GOD CAN BRING THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM TO ANY OF HIS ELECT.
You would have us believed that while God is not "constrained" by the Sacraments, He does in fact happen to be constrained by "impossibility".
If what I have said is a completely fallacious principle, then why have you proclaimed:
"Of course God is not constrained by the Sacraments."
I agree with you that priests and bishops are ordained and consecrated to serve the Holy Sacraments, because that is the function of the Church.
In the history of the church, do we not have saints who have said that angels have brought them Holy Communion? Angels serve as God's ministers.
So, yes, Baptism of Desire is possible.
In one of the feast days of the Church (the Eastern Catholic Church), there is the Feast of the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste. These were martyrs who earned the crown of martyrdom during the Roman Persecution.
Originally 40 martyrs were placed at the lake in freezing weather. One of the men renounced Christ, and as he was leaving the place of martyrdom, he froze to death of extreme exposure to the freezing wind. However, one of the heathen soldiers saw the bravery of the martyrs, and decided that their God was now his God. He striped off his clothing and quickly ran to take the place of the one who had renounced Christ. A crown of martyrdom was seen over his head as he died for Christ.
Was not this Baptism of Desire? And did not God grant him all the graces needed for salvation.
Note: there was no time to baptize the man in water. The lake was frozen.
-
God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
This is a completely fallacious principle. Of course God is not constrained by the Sacraments. But God has revealed that He constrains US. Your thinking turns the Sacraments into mere helps to salvation rather than making them necessary.
This is the correct principle, which all the BoDers deny: GOD CAN BRING THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM TO ANY OF HIS ELECT.
You would have us believed that while God is not "constrained" by the Sacraments, He does in fact happen to be constrained by "impossibility".
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect. Maria Regina was right, and "not constrained" means just what I am saying.
-
Sanctifying Grace is a Grace from God. God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
What are the Sacraments for, then, if they can be optional?
Was the Lord Jesus Christ teaching half-truths when he instituted the sacraments needed for salvation under His New Law? Was the Lord Jesus Christ "kind" of establishing a New Covenant for salvation just so later on, men, following human sensibilities, can say there are known and visible exceptions to it?
The Church has already settled the matter on an infallible manner which applies to all ages. Baptism of water is necessary for salvation, with no exception, whatsoever. The Church does not know of any other Baptism for the remission of original and actual sin. The "Baptism of Desire" is a speculation for justified catechumens ,which remain in the realm of theological speculation.
You cannot say that Baptism is optional for salvation or turn into a mere metaphor the exact words of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5, without incurring in the following anathemas:
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
-
BoDers, like me ... do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect. Maria Regina was right, and "not constrained" means just what I am saying.
Then don't bring the constraint crap into it. You're just not honest. Then say what you mean which is that God does not choose to bring Baptism to all His elect. You use the "constraint" crap to make a pseudo-argument. Constraint has nothing to do with this, but it sounds good so you use it anyway. You're claiming that God doesn't always want to give His elect Baptism. Leave "constraint" out of it.
GOD HAS INDEED CONSTRAINED US WITH THE SACRAMENTS. Trent teaches that the Sacraments are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Yet you persist in your heresy of denying this. Directly through the words of Our Lord and through the dogmatic teaching of Trent we know that God WILL NOT save anyone without the Sacraments. Even if you believe in BoD you MUST SAY that the person is being saved BY THE SACRAMENT ... what a bad-willed buffoon you are.
-
If what I have said is a completely fallacious principle, then why have you proclaimed:
"Of course God is not constrained by the Sacraments."
Because God is indeed omnipotent.
It is not a question of what he can actively or passively do, potentially.
He is omnipotent.
It is fallacious because it takes a negative attribute of God and with a logic sidestep makes it proof of its very existence.
[God is not bound by Sacraments->There's other means beside Sacraments]
Similarly, we could say: [God is not bound by human free will->He acts contrary to it] or [God is not bound by time-> Time is cyclical]
In fact, such an argument is not only fallacious, but also blasphemous.
God revealed to us His intentions and His divine truths, in our current age by means of the Church.
Saying that God would act contrary to what He has said, means indirectly calling Him a liar.
We know He is not. So if He let the Church reveal the absolute necessity of the Sacraments, it must necessarily mean it is true, unless one wants to abandon the Catholic religion in favour of his own fanciful make believe cult.
In addition to that, it is also extremely damaging to the Faith.
Once you accept it as valid, there's pretty much no revealed truth safe from adding exceptions.
God after all, is not bound by anything.
-
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
Oh, is that a fact? At best, it is a possibility.
-
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
Oh, is that a fact? At best, it is a possibility.
It's a fact, since the Church's official law insists that catechumens who die before baptism must be given a requiem Mass.
-
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
Oh, is that a fact? At best, it is a possibility.
It's a fact, since the Church's official law insists that catechumens who die before baptism must be given a requiem Mass.
Stubborn should agree with this.
I don't, as Canonical provisions, especially those transitory and reformable in nature (ergo not stemming from Divine Law), are no basis for theological speculation.
-
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
Oh, is that a fact? At best, it is a possibility.
It's a fact, since the Church's official law insists that catechumens who die before baptism must be given a requiem Mass.
Stubborn should agree with this.
I don't, as Canonical provisions, especially those transitory and reformable in nature (ergo not stemming from Divine Law), are no basis for theological speculation.
Stubborn won't agree. You both should.
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
Therefore....get the message?
-
Stubborn won't agree. You both should.
He similarly uses Canon Law to prove his OCAC.
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
And the exactly opposite pre-1917 provision is not harmful because...?
It directly contradicted BOD by this very (twisted) logic.
Ah! But I said it is a possibility (that God may withhold the Sacrament) ... not a certainty as you fallaciously said earlier.
-
Stubborn won't agree. You both should.
He similarly uses Canon Law to prove his OCAC.
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
And the exactly opposite pre-1917 provision is not harmful because...?
It directly contradicted BOD by this very (twisted) logic.
Omission is not denial. You have violated that principle.
Ah! But I said it is a possibility (that God may withhold the Sacrament) ... not a certainty as you fallaciously said earlier.
You cannot even with ease profess Catholic professions of faith. Will you cut it out?
God will not withhold what people deserve, and that means deserve from his Mercy, which is beyond justice.
-
Sanctifying Grace is a Grace from God. God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
What are the Sacraments for, then, if they can be optional?
Was the Lord Jesus Christ teaching half-truths when he instituted the sacraments needed for salvation under His New Law? Was the Lord Jesus Christ "kind" of establishing a New Covenant for salvation just so later on, men, following human sensibilities, can say there are known and visible exceptions to it?
The Church has already settled the matter on an infallible manner which applies to all ages. Baptism of water is necessary for salvation, with no exception, whatsoever. The Church does not know of any other Baptism for the remission of original and actual sin. The "Baptism of Desire" is a speculation for justified catechumens ,which remain in the realm of theological speculation.
You cannot say that Baptism is optional for salvation or turn into a mere metaphor the exact words of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5, without incurring in the following anathemas:
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Baptism is essential for salvation. I have never said that it was not essential.
Holy communion is also essential for salvation -- Read John 6.
This same chapter in John 6 has caused many Protestants to convert to Catholicism.
The Church was established by Christ to serve the Holy Eucharist because unless we eat of His Body and drink of His Blood, we do not have life eternal.
Likewise, without Baptism, we cannot partake of Holy Confession and the Eucharist. Without Baptism, our marriage will not be a sacramental union. Without Baptism, the Holy Spirit cannot illuminate us in Confirmation. WIthout Baptism, a man cannot be ordained as a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop. Without Baptism, Holy Unction cannot be administered. Holy Baptism is our initiation into Christ where we put on Christ and are to be Christ to one another through our prayers and through our good works.
-
Omission is not denial. You have violated that principle.
Ok, are all pre-1917 collections of Canon Law devoid of any mention whatever of catechumenal funeral masses or burial or similar provisions? Honest question.
Would you say 1917 CIC's provision proves the possibility of BOD for catechumens?
Is this an accurate statement for your position?
You cannot even with ease profess Catholic professions of faith. Will you cut it out?
No, I actually believe the Creeds, unlike you. I simply won't be bullied around by some troll.
God will not withhold what people deserve, and that means deserve from his Mercy, which is beyond justice.
You actually said this:
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
then said:
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
Do you admit the 1917 provision at best proves that BOD for catechumens might happen, and therefore given said hypothesis, the Church presumes some Catechumens might have received BOD and therefore can qualify for a Catholic Funeral ?
-
Baptism is essential for salvation. I have never said that it was not essential.
Holy communion is also essential for salvation -- Read John 6.
This same chapter in John 6 has caused many Protestants to convert to Catholicism.
The Church was established by Christ to serve the Holy Eucharist because unless we eat of His Body and drink of His Blood, we do not have life eternal.
But how is the Matutu going to get himself some Holy Communion, given he lives isolated in the Amazon?
Eucharist of desire?
Did you actually mean... both Baptism and the Eucharist are "essential"... but not REALLY necessary?
-
Omission is not denial. You have violated that principle.
Ok, are all pre-1917 collections of Canon Law devoid of any mention whatever of catechumenal funeral masses or burial or similar provisions? Honest question.
The principle is, again, that "omission is not denial". No, any law not mentioning it, is not condemning it.
Would you say 1917 CIC's provision proves the possibility of BOD for catechumens?
Is this an accurate statement for your position?
Yes, any positive directive of insisting on a requiem Mass for a catechumen who died before baptism, is a positive affirmation of baptism of desire by law.
You cannot even with ease profess Catholic professions of faith. Will you cut it out?
No, I actually believe the Creeds, unlike you. I simply won't be bullied around by some troll.
No, I believe all the creeds. You are the one who came to this forum saying that after three years you could not discern the basic tenets of Catholicism. And, the creeds are the basic tenets!
God will not withhold what people deserve, and that means deserve from his Mercy, which is beyond justice.
You actually said this:
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
then said:
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
You just screwed up my negative presentation. Illogical.
Do you admit the 1917 provision at best proves that BOD for catechumens might happen, and therefore given said hypothesis, the Church presumes some Catechumens might have received BOD and therefore can qualify for a Catholic Funeral ?
The Church says it is possible, therefore it is a condemnation of those who say it is impossible.
-
Baptism is essential for salvation. I have never said that it was not essential.
Holy communion is also essential for salvation -- Read John 6.
This same chapter in John 6 has caused many Protestants to convert to Catholicism.
The Church was established by Christ to serve the Holy Eucharist because unless we eat of His Body and drink of His Blood, we do not have life eternal.
But how is the Matutu going to get himself some Holy Communion, given he lives isolated in the Amazon?
Eucharist of desire?
Did you actually mean... both Baptism and the Eucharist are "essential"... but not REALLY necessary?
This is why it is usually posited as occurring at the moment of death, though we should have faith that God will bring to completion what he himself begins.
Remember Christ is the object of the sacraments, and the sacraments are instruments. Man was not created for baptism, but baptism was created for man. So that he might get to heaven. But if God chooses to save someone through some other instrument, that is his call isn't it?
For example, in the Old Covenant to enter God's church you had to be circuмcised. Yet Naaman the Syrian Leper left the prophet Elisha converted without circuмcision, and he even obtained from him permission to continue aiding his master when they went up into the house of idols:
2 Kings 5
17 “If you will not,” said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. 18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.
What is this? Conversion without formal conformity to the covenant?! Ecuмenism and compromise?!
:wink:
-
Sanctifying Grace is a Grace from God. God is not constrained by the Holy Sacraments, which He has established for us.
What are the Sacraments for, then, if they can be optional?
Was the Lord Jesus Christ teaching half-truths when he instituted the sacraments needed for salvation under His New Law? Was the Lord Jesus Christ "kind" of establishing a New Covenant for salvation just so later on, men, following human sensibilities, can say there are known and visible exceptions to it?
The Church has already settled the matter on an infallible manner which applies to all ages. Baptism of water is necessary for salvation, with no exception, whatsoever. The Church does not know of any other Baptism for the remission of original and actual sin. The "Baptism of Desire" is a speculation for justified catechumens ,which remain in the realm of theological speculation.
You cannot say that Baptism is optional for salvation or turn into a mere metaphor the exact words of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 3:5, without incurring in the following anathemas:
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Baptism is essential for salvation. I have never said that it was not essential.
Holy communion is also essential for salvation -- Read John 6.
This same chapter in John 6 has caused many Protestants to convert to Catholicism.
The Church was established by Christ to serve the Holy Eucharist because unless we eat of His Body and drink of His Blood, we do not have life eternal.
Likewise, without Baptism, we cannot partake of Holy Confession and the Eucharist. Without Baptism, our marriage will not be a sacramental union. Without Baptism, the Holy Spirit cannot illuminate us in Confirmation. WIthout Baptism, a man cannot be ordained as a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop. Without Baptism, Holy Unction cannot be administered. Holy Baptism is our initiation into Christ where we put on Christ and are to be Christ to one another through our prayers and through our good works.
You have mentioned in another thread that Cardinal Gibbons was a Modernist who played a major role in the apparent dilution of the Roman Catholic Church through the current Interfaith movement and you were correct. It was Americanist Gibbons who introduced the novelty of the "three" baptisms in the Baltimore Catechism.
The Baltimore Catechism was confected at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, by a group of American Bishops under the control and influence of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. James Cardinal Gibbons was a Catholic prelate who did not hesitate to get up before a Methodist congregation, in a Methodist Church, and give a supposedly Catholic sermon while reading from a Protestant Bible!
Cardinal Gibbons was not a great theologian. He was a controller of theological thought. I hesitate to call him an opportunist, because there may be times when a priest might brilliantly take advantage of a situation, for Our Lord’s sake. But when a Catholic prelate becomes all opportunist, and is interested in teaching what doctrines of the Church would be most to the liking of his hearers or what general summary of the Church’s history — as in the Baltimore Cardinal’s book, The Faith of Our Fathers — will be least offensive to his new-found neighbors, then I think opportunism, is serious defect.
Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, “How many kinds of Baptism are there?”: “There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.”
That is heresy! There is only one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith. (Eph. 4:5.) The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that this one Baptism, which is administered by water, is the one which must be faithfully confessed by all.
From Bread of Life by Fr. Leonard Feeney
-
You may be interested in this article, Maria Regina:
Americanism — A Phantom Heresy?
http://catholicism.org/americanism-heresy.html
The Vatican Secretary of State who signed the new concordat is Agostino Cardinal Casaroli. According to the list, he was serving as Secretary for the Public Affairs of the Church in 1976, and he entered Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ on September 28, 1957. Is it any wonder that the new Code of Canon Law at first gave the impression that a Catholic could join a Masonic Society that was not “against” the Church? (As if the naturalistic religion of Masonry in itself is not “against” the Church of Jesus Christ!) All the double talk and deliberate ambiguity forced Pope John Paul to make a clearer statement, namely that no Catholic can join any Masonic sect without committing a mortal sin. Undoubtedly, things are not all harmony and peace behind Vatican walls.
And so, the child is born — religious indifference — Satan’s child — conceived in the womb of the Masonic Enlightenment — delivered by the liberal philosophy of Americanism, in a maternity ward known as Vatican Council II . This is an evil offspring who has brought about a modernized and updated Church with a new liturgy, tailored to avoid ruffling the sensitivities of non-Catholics—a Church with a clergy more interested in being popular than preaching the truth. Mortification, obedience, and contemplation have been replaced by social justice, a utopian search for world peace , and false ecuмenism .
-
God will not withhold what people deserve, and that means deserve from his Mercy, which is beyond justice.
You actually said this:
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
then said:
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
Let me expound on this.
What is in red is true because I was speaking of the actual Sacrament, not baptism of desire.
What is in blue is true because the Church is not saying that every catechumen who dies before baptism, just that it is possible. Any requiem Mass for any Catholic, catechumen or not, is not a statement one is saved, but a good hope the soul is. Catechumens, by law, are treated as Catholics, even though they have not been baptized yet.
Laszlo and Stubborn, as Feeneyites, are at odds with this last statement, but they refrain from correcting each other too harshly because they each are the enemy of the other's enemy, so-to-speak, which sort makes them friends.
-
BoDers, like me ... do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect. Maria Regina was right, and "not constrained" means just what I am saying.
Then don't bring the constraint crap into it. You're just not honest. Then say what you mean which is that God does not choose to bring Baptism to all His elect. You use the "constraint" crap to make a pseudo-argument. Constraint has nothing to do with this, but it sounds good so you use it anyway. You're claiming that God doesn't always want to give His elect Baptism. Leave "constraint" out of it.
GOD HAS INDEED CONSTRAINED US WITH THE SACRAMENTS. Trent teaches that the Sacraments are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Yet you persist in your heresy of denying this. Directly through the words of Our Lord and through the dogmatic teaching of Trent we know that God WILL NOT save anyone without the Sacraments. Even if you believe in BoD you MUST SAY that the person is being saved BY THE SACRAMENT ... what a bad-willed buffoon you are.
Yes, God constrains us, which means, like with any obligations, we must have the knowledge & will towards it. The principle of invincible ignorance exonerates from any sin, and it exonerates from this obligation, too, which is why baptism by desire, without the knowledge, can merely be an implicit desire (will).
-
But how is the Matutu going to get himself some Holy Communion, given he lives isolated in the Amazon?
Eucharist of desire?
Did you actually mean... both Baptism and the Eucharist are "essential"... but not REALLY necessary?
This is why it is usually posited as occurring at the moment of death, though we should have faith that God will bring to completion what he himself begins.
So, both Baptism and Eucharist are not REALLY necessary, but, sort of, essential maybe.
Does Maria agree with this? Let's wait for her to respond.
Remember Christ is the object of the sacraments, and the sacraments are instruments. Man was not created for baptism, but baptism was created for man. So that he might get to heaven. But if God chooses to save someone through some other instrument, that is his call isn't it?
What if God chooseth to scrap everything He revealed about Hell and Salvation altogether?
Empty Hell is a thing people. God is not constrained by His own Plan.
-
Yes, God constrains us, which means, like with any obligations, we must have the knowledge & will towards it. The principle of invincible ignorance exonerates from any sin, and it exonerates from this obligation, too, which is why baptism by desire, without the knowledge, can merely be an implicit desire (will).
Aha. Now, all it takes is extend the concept of "invincible" ignorance as to apply to anyone not actually convinced of the Catholic religion being true, as the CounterChurch does, and you got BOD-orama on a global scale.
Perfect.
-
The principle is, again, that "omission is not denial". No, any law not mentioning it, is not condemning it.
But are you sure there aren't any in the whole History of Canon Laws?
Or are you just saying it?
And, if someone showed one to you, would you drop BOD? As you seemed to have agreed it would equate to a "condemnation of BOD" by your own logic.
Yes, any positive directive of insisting on a requiem Mass for a catechumen who died before baptism, is a positive affirmation of baptism of desire by law.
A presumption on the possibility of some catechumen possibly receiving BOD you mean.
No, I believe all the creeds. You are the one who came to this forum saying that after three years you could not discern the basic tenets of Catholicism. And, the creeds are the basic tenets!
No, this is what you believe:
Creeds are for deliberate and explicit profession by Catholics. It's a conscience obligation. This has nothing to do with what is extraordinarily implicit to those struggling in that window of conversion.
They're mere conscience obligations according to you. They do not reveal or define absolute truths.
You believe you have to believe them as a mere bureaucratic requirement.
You just screwed up my negative presentation. Illogical.
No it was a positive affirmation. You proclaimed that you KNOW God WILL not supply the Sacraments to all ergo negate the Sacraments from some.
The Church says it is possible, therefore it is a condemnation of those who say it is impossible.
It's not actually. But ok, I'm fine with this. Even if actual, it has nothing at all to do with your BOD, which is completely different.
-
But how is the Matutu going to get himself some Holy Communion, given he lives isolated in the Amazon?
Eucharist of desire?
Did you actually mean... both Baptism and the Eucharist are "essential"... but not REALLY necessary?
This is why it is usually posited as occurring at the moment of death, though we should have faith that God will bring to completion what he himself begins.
So, both Baptism and Eucharist are not REALLY necessary, but, sort of, essential maybe.
Does Maria agree with this? Let's wait for her to respond.
Remember Christ is the object of the sacraments, and the sacraments are instruments. Man was not created for baptism, but baptism was created for man. So that he might get to heaven. But if God chooses to save someone through some other instrument, that is his call isn't it?
What if God chooseth to scrap everything He revealed about Hell and Salvation altogether?
Empty Hell is a thing people. God is not constrained by His own Plan.
Well yeah, you can't interpret necessary in an absolute way.
For example, according to that logic, most baptized babies who die won't go to heaven.
Why?
They didn't receive the Eucharist, but Christ said unless you do you have no life in you.
He didn't make an exception.
So if you say baptized babies can go to heaven without the Eucharist, then you MUST mean that the Eucharist isn't REALLY necessary for salvation, right?
This is the kind of distinctions you are failing to make.
WHY is baptism necessary? Because of grace.
But can grace be had without the sacrament?
In certain circuмstances yea.
But if it IS had without the sacrament, then the OBJECT of baptism has been accomplished and those justified in this way would be considered virtually baptized, by desire.
You need to stick with the saints and leave your personal reasonings behind. Those enlightened by GOD far surpass your paltry reasonings and mine. Not to mention those who LIVED during and right after Trent have SAID what Trent meant. Who are you to say otherwise?
-
You actually said this:
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
then said:
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
Let me expound on this.
What is in red is true because I was speaking of the actual Sacrament, not baptism of desire.
But.. that's circular reasoning at its best.
You DENY God WILL bring the actual Sacrament to all the ELECT, because of BOD.
And use this as a proof for BOD itself.
How else can you affirm that? How could you know?
What is in blue is true because the Church is not saying that every catechumen who dies before baptism, just that it is possible. Any requiem Mass for any Catholic, catechumen or not, is not a statement one is saved, but a good hope the soul is. Catechumens, by law, are treated as Catholics, even though they have not been baptized yet.
Right, it's a hope, a presumption for a possibility only.
It's as much an affirmation of a theological certainty as Penance being legislated LICIT for all in danger of death.
One could also techically say that the Church cannot even be sure if the catechumen did not receive actual Sacramental baptism before his death..
It's useless to argue from Canon Law.
-
You actually said this:
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
then said:
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
Let me expound on this.
What is in red is true because I was speaking of the actual Sacrament, not baptism of desire.
But.. that's circular reasoning at its best.
You DENY God WILL bring the actual Sacrament to all the ELECT, because of BOD.
And use this as a proof for BOD itself.
How else can you affirm that? How could you know?
What is in blue is true because the Church is not saying that every catechumen who dies before baptism, just that it is possible. Any requiem Mass for any Catholic, catechumen or not, is not a statement one is saved, but a good hope the soul is. Catechumens, by law, are treated as Catholics, even though they have not been baptized yet.
Right, it's a hope, a presumption for a possibility only.
It's as much an affirmation of a theological certainty as Penance being legislated LICIT for all in danger of death.
One could also techically say that the Church cannot even be sure if the catechumen did not receive actual Sacramental baptism before his death..
It's useless to argue from Canon Law.
Here is how we know:
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html?m=1
-
Well yeah, you can't interpret necessary in an absolute way.
Congrats for the anathema.
For example, according to that logic, most baptized babies who die won't go to heaven.
Why?
They didn't receive the Eucharist, but Christ said unless you do you have no life in you.
He didn't make an exception.
So if you say baptized babies can go to heaven without the Eucharist, then you MUST mean that the Eucharist isn't REALLY necessary for salvation, right?
This is the kind of distinctions you are failing to make.
But Maria said that, in fact, BODomaniacs exploit John 6:53-54 to introduce an alleged absolute requirement for Salvation(who they do not even believe in anyway, as shown above!) in order to make an analogy with the Sacrament of Baptism, which is in stead declared infallibly as absolutely necessary and therefore debunk the infallible declaration. And in the process get anathematised.
WHY is baptism necessary? Because of grace.
But can grace be had without the sacrament?
In certain circuмstances yea.
But if it IS had without the sacrament, then the OBJECT of baptism has been accomplished and those justified in this way would be considered virtually baptized, by desire.
This is wrong.
You need to stick with the saints and leave your personal reasonings behind. Those enlightened by GOD far surpass your paltry reasonings and mine.
Error of the Jansenists #30 again. It's as if you don't care.
Not to mention those who LIVED during and right after Trent have SAID what Trent meant. Who are you to say otherwise?
This is false, as it does not apply to your grace distinction above.
Plus, it's a fallacious argument. In fact, those who are mostly remote from the time (a time where travel was difficult, means of communication rudimentary, books and docuмents rare and expensive) are more suited, especially since they have all the subsequent clarifications and testimonies of the Church, and later theologians.
It would be useful if the theologian contemporary to Trent had actually taken part in the Council, or anyway had first hand testimonies of Bishops, etc, or docuмent we do not have anymore.
-
Here is how we know:
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html?m=1
Absurd and dangerous.
We KNOW demons have the ability to simulate godliness and fancy of appearing as False Christi or false Mariae.
Padre Pio himself told us he had difficulty in recognising the Devil's deception from the Real Apparitions, and could only do so carefully and slowly.
This is thrice wrong:
-you shouldn't take that website's testimony as valid of the fact and letter even being real
-the Jesuit shouldn't have publicised such a private apparition unbeknownst as to its validity to him personally
-the "lady in odour of sancity" shouldn't have taken what the Spirit told her as true on the surface, especially if it apparently went against Common Church Teaching*
*indirectly, the anecdote shows this, because if BOD for INFIDELS you embrace as true, was a common and accepted teaching, the Father wouldn't have been disconcerted as he was to begin with.
I'm always sceptical about this imaginific alleged intervention of Our Lady where she says absurd things such as:
"this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance" and seemingly order Christ around, as if He would not judge in the most Perfect and Just manner already but needed Mary's intervention to administer it.
And as if Mary's will would be actually and properly in contrast with God, and seemingly allowed to ignore Divine Law as her own whim.
These are sure and tell tale signs of False Apparitions.
-
You actually said this:
BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.
then said:
The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.
Let me expound on this.
What is in red is true because I was speaking of the actual Sacrament, not baptism of desire.
But.. that's circular reasoning at its best.
You DENY God WILL bring the actual Sacrament to all the ELECT, because of BOD.
And use this as a proof for BOD itself.
How else can you affirm that? How could you know?
It's not circular reasoning. The fact is, the Church teaches it. It is in the official catechisms approved by popes, and recognized in the official legislation of the Church. It starts right there. And if you have the true Faith, it really ends right there. Why are you questioning it? Once you question the safety of papally approved catechisms, and the Church's official law, you are looking at not being in the true Church.
-
Yes, God constrains us, which means, like with any obligations, we must have the knowledge & will towards it. The principle of invincible ignorance exonerates from any sin, and it exonerates from this obligation, too, which is why baptism by desire, without the knowledge, can merely be an implicit desire (will).
Aha. Now, all it takes is extend the concept of "invincible" ignorance as to apply to anyone not actually convinced of the Catholic religion being true, as the CounterChurch does, and you got BOD-orama on a global scale.
Perfect.
The Novus Ordo does extend it. Those who understand it correctly, don't.
-
It's not circular reasoning. The fact is, the Church teaches it. It is in the official catechisms approved by popes, and recognized in the official legislation of the Church. It starts right there. And if you have the true Faith, it really ends right there. Why are you questioning it? Once you question the safety of papally approved catechisms, and the Church's official law, you are looking at not being in the true Church.
Yes it is.
A) Church teaches BOD
B)Therefore not ALL elect will receive Sacrament of Baptism (which is also heretical and fallacious anyway in itself as a deduction)
C)BOD is a teaching of the Church =A)
-
The Novus Ordo does extend it. Those who understand it correctly, don't.
Why wouldn't you extend it? Or at least contemplate it as possible?
Surely as Greg says,
If the desire to serve God and the will to embrace his religion, though it doesn't arrive in our lifetime doesn't count toward our salvation, then sorry, you worship a legalistic monster, not the God of the sacred heart of Jesus.
BOD=Destroyer of Faith, Religion.
-
Here is how we know:
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html?m=1
Absurd and dangerous.
We KNOW demons have the ability to simulate godliness and fancy of appearing as False Christi or false Mariae.
Padre Pio himself told us he had difficulty in recognising the Devil's deception from the Real Apparitions, and could only do so carefully and slowly.
This is thrice wrong:
-you shouldn't take that website's testimony as valid of the fact and letter even being real
-the Jesuit shouldn't have publicised such a private apparition unbeknownst as to its validity to him personally
-the "lady in odour of sancity" shouldn't have taken what the Spirit told her as true on the surface, especially if it apparently went against Common Church Teaching*
*indirectly, the anecdote shows this, because if BOD for INFIDELS you embrace as true, was a common and accepted teaching, the Father wouldn't have been disconcerted as he was to begin with.
I'm always sceptical about this imaginific alleged intervention of Our Lady where she says absurd things such as:
"this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance" and seemingly order Christ around, as if He would not judge in the most Perfect and Just manner already but needed Mary's intervention to administer it.
And as if Mary's will would be actually and properly in contrast with God, and seemingly allowed to ignore Divine Law as her own whim.
These are sure and tell tale signs of False Apparitions.
Your self-reliance is breathtaking. You do realize the Pope has taught that we MUST adhere to the consensus of theologians, don't you?
Denzingers Sources of Catholic Dogma:
1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
You need to deal with this Desmond. The mentality of "No one defined it, it isn't a dogma!" Is not Catholic. You are obliged to MORE. YOU have to submit to what all the theologians teach as true.
So when all the theologians in the world accept Pope Pius X Catechism as orthodox and it includes BOD in it, this is binding, for it is the teaching not only of all the theologians, but all the bishops of the world in union with the pope, and THAT is infallible.
You are like the black knight in Monty Python being totally de-limbed: "'Tis but a flesh wound!"
-
Your self-reliance is breathtaking.
Surely I do not rely on YOU, as you've been shown to be incoherent at best, duplicitous at worst.
You do realize the Pope has taught that we MUST adhere to the consensus of theologians, don't you?
1)What does this have to do with the link you provided and cute little anecdote I was commenting on?
2)Sadly for you BOD proper has no consensus.
3)BODomania as you understand it has 0 consensus
-
It's not circular reasoning. The fact is, the Church teaches it. It is in the official catechisms approved by popes, and recognized in the official legislation of the Church. It starts right there. And if you have the true Faith, it really ends right there. Why are you questioning it? Once you question the safety of papally approved catechisms, and the Church's official law, you are looking at not being in the true Church.
Yes it is.
A) Church teaches BOD
B)Therefore not ALL elect will receive Sacrament of Baptism (which is also heretical and fallacious anyway in itself as a deduction)
C)BOD is a teaching of the Church =A)
What you created is that of your own making.
The fact is, baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church, and it is included under the umbrella of the Sacrament, which is why it contains the word "baptism". As well as baptism of blood.
So, you reject the catechism and law of the Church, approved by popes, that reveal baptism of desire is a belief of the Church?
-
What you created is that of your own making.
I'm sorry.
The fact is, baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church
It has been taught inside the Church, yes.
and it is included under the umbrella of the Sacrament, which is why it contains the word "baptism".
Is this the actual reason?
As well as baptism of blood.
But baptism of blood is a BOD too.
So, you reject the catechism and law of the Church, approved by popes, that reveal baptism of desire is a belief of the Church?
What if I did? A catechism may very well contain errors, for a whole number of reasons.
What is more approved and held in high esteem, recommended century after century, than the Summa? Yet it contains error.
Having said that, there's no problem with BOD, provided it's understood and defined in a certain manner.
The issue with BOD is that it seems to be utterly destructive and inevitably lead people to extend its potential applicability to all sorts of erroneous circuмstances, to a point of completely abandoning the dogma of EENS.
What is even more worrying, is BODomaniacs seem hell bent in fiercely imposing their erroneous belief on others, as if rabid.
-
What you created is that of your own making.
I'm sorry.
The fact is, baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church
It has been taught inside the Church, yes.
By the Church, firstly. Approved catechisms and canon law are expressions of the magisterium of the Church.
and it is included under the umbrella of the Sacrament, which is why it contains the word "baptism".
Is this the actual reason?
I already said it was.
As well as baptism of blood.
But baptism of blood is a BOD too.
Yes, and it's basically the same theological workings as when someone might have his sin forgiven directly by God by perfect contrition before going to Confession.
So, you reject the catechism and law of the Church, approved by popes, that reveal baptism of desire is a belief of the Church?
What if I did? A catechism may very well contain errors, for a whole number of reasons.
What is more approved and held in high esteem, recommended century after century, than the Summa? Yet it contains error.
The Summa was the work of a theologian, not the work of a magisterial source designed by the Church for everyone to learn from.
A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.
Having said that, there's no problem with BOD, provided it's understood and defined in a certain manner.
The issue with BOD is that it seems to be utterly destructive and inevitably lead people to extend its potential applicability to all sorts of erroneous circuмstances, to a point of completely abandoning the dogma of EENS.
What is even more worrying, is BODomaniacs seem hell bent in fiercely imposing their erroneous belief on others, as if rabid.
The Universal Salvationists of Vatican II (Novus Ordo) took it to an extreme, which is their fault, not the fault of the doctrine itself. Just like when people abuse marriage, it doesn't make marriage bad. Nor would some who starts to actually worship Our Lady be the fault of the doctrine of hyperdulia. The principle is, 'abuse does not argue against proper use'. It like the Protestants who blames the abuse of alcohol on any use of it.
-
But baptism of blood is a BOD too.
If in fact someone reads Trent as teaching BoD, then Trent also rules out Baptism of Blood as something separate. Trent would reduce BoB to BoD, undermining St. Alphonsus' teaching that it's a different "quasi ex opere operato" thing. Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it, right? Or so they say. Then there's no third option given, i.e. BoB.
-
A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.
Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation? Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also? Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary? Does that suddenly reopen the question?
-
A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.
Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation? Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also? Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary? Does that suddenly reopen the question?
If that is what you think about the first ~1600 years, then your conclusion must be that the Popes since St. Pius V were heretics.
-
A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.
Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation? Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also? Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary? Does that suddenly reopen the question?
If that is what you think about the first ~1600 years, then your conclusion must be that the Popes since St. Pius V were heretics.
Quote me a Pope who taught that explicit faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity are not necessary for salvation. This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire but about the requirements for explicit faith. There's the Pius IX quote which is badly misinterpreted and Suprema Haec. SH is a spurious docuмent that doesn't even come from the pope.
Answer my original question, would you? How could everyone believe this for 1600 years and not have it be infallible truth? You're claiming that because BoD appears in a series of catechisms for about 150 years or so that this constitutes infallible dogma. You're in contradiction with yourself but don't care.
On another note, for about 800 years, everyone believed with St. Augustine that unbaptized infants suffered pain of sense in hell ... until Abelard (who also by the way rejected BoD) came along and overturned this. And the Church adopted his position as the Catholic one. My point being that the widespread adoption of a speculative opinion by theologians is not tantamount to it being a defined infallible teaching of the Church ... as per your negative infallibility nonsense.
-
A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.
Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation? Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also? Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary? Does that suddenly reopen the question?
If that is what you think about the first ~1600 years, then your conclusion must be that the Popes since St. Pius V were heretics.
Quote me a Pope who taught that explicit faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity are not necessary for salvation. This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire but about the requirements for explicit faith. There's the Pius IX quote which is badly misinterpreted and Suprema Haec. SH is a spurious docuмent that doesn't even come from the pope.
Answer my original question, would you? How could everyone believe this for 1600 years and not have it be infallible truth? You're claiming that because BoD appears in a series of catechisms for about 150 years or so that this constitutes infallible dogma. You're in contradiction with yourself but don't care.
On another note, for about 800 years, everyone believed with St. Augustine that unbaptized infants suffered pain of sense in hell ... until Abelard (who also by the way rejected BoD) came along and overturned this. And the Church adopted his position as the Catholic one. My point being that the widespread adoption of a speculative opinion by theologians is not tantamount to it being a defined infallible teaching of the Church ... as per your negative infallibility nonsense.
It is necessary to make the proper distinctions. A dogma of the Faith (as the necessity of water baptism for salvation) is different from a theological speculation (the possibility of "Baptism of Desire" for justified catechumens). It is also true that there have been examples in the past of the Church permitting the acceptance of errors to be generally held: the eternal punishment of non-baptized infants for 800 years which Ladislaus just mentioned, as well as the acceptance of Copernican cosmology and the toleration of biological evolution, among others.
-
A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.
Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation? Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also? Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary? Does that suddenly reopen the question?
Here is the answer to this.
What you say was taught for the first 1600 years was NOT taught. What you just did was add the word "explicit", which falsifies history.
Let me give an analogous circuмstance that is popularly known. Within an early creed it was professed that, 'the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father'. Centuries go by and the Church decided to add something so that it said, ''the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son'. Eastern Catholics objected to this saying that the first wording was teaching that the Holy Ghost did NOT proceed also from the Son. Since then the Greek Catholics left the Church predominantly over this.
The fact is, the original omission of "and the Son" in the Creed was not a denial of it. But the (now) Greek Orthodox illogically concluded that it was a denial. They left the true Church and became non-Catholic.
Ladislaus is doing the same thing with the profession of the Trinity and Christ the Redeemer. He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Also, I would say these clearly contradict salvation through implicit desire:
"Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not attain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private person, a master or a servant, a man or a woman." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrneans)
"Therefore, from the preaching and the testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be known first, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 72)
"Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth - because there are some remote nations still (although it is said that they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way, - what must human nature do, or what has it done - for it has either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished - but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." (St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace)
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Also, I would say these clearly contradict salvation through implicit desire:
"Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not attain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private person, a master or a servant, a man or a woman." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrneans)
"Therefore, from the preaching and the testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be known first, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 72)
"Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth - because there are some remote nations still (although it is said that they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way, - what must human nature do, or what has it done - for it has either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished - but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." (St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace)
The necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation (at the very least) is an indisputable fact. These are following official statements taken from the Enchiridion:
a. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp.A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
And....
Denzinger 1349b Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.
-
What you say was taught for the first 1600 years was NOT taught. What you just did was add the word "explicit", which falsifies history.
Absolutely false. This is established beyond any doubt. Not only should you see Cantarella's post, but it's unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and all subsequent theologians. Vatican I absolutely put the nail into the coffin of the Rewarder God theory by teaching that supernatural faith must by definition have an object that can ONLY be known by revelation. Rewarder God can be known through human reason. Jesuits speculated that one could have a supernatural formal motive of faith without a supernatural material object of that faith. Vatican I nixed that once and for all. That ended all Jesuitical speculation on the subject, even though this was also known to be de fide from the OUM. You simply believe what you want to believe. More and more you reveal yourself pertinacious in your heresy. I love it how you revere St. Thomas when he agrees with you but then ignore him when he teaches that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. How could the Church have ignored this error for so long? Pick and choose according to your own fancies ... the very definition of heresy.
-
What they believe and what St. Thomas believed are radically opposed. St. Thomas clearly taught that invincible ignorance is not salvific and also, clearly taught that after Pentecost, all men are bound to Explicit Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Blessed Trinity. If they do not hear of the True Faith, how can they have the True Faith, required for salvation? Faith comes by hearing, as the Holy Scripture reveals.
This is the legitimate notion of "Invincible Ignorance":
"If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief"
and here, the necessity of Explicit Faith in the mystery of the Trinity:
“After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation.” 5 And again: “…once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
and here, that God would send a preacher to an invincible ignorant in the wilderness who is truly seeking goodness:
"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly…even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20). "
Someone who truly seeks the Truth of Christ, will have the Gospel brought to him. There is absolute no reason why God could not do this and send a preacher to him just as He sent Peter to Cornelius.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.
The diluters of EENS never actually say the non-Christians can be saved, Arvinger. Do not expect an honest answer from these Modernists. They fabricate loopholes such as the above. The made-up scenario is that these non-Christians are somehow invisibly transformed into Catholics at the last very second of their lives, enter the state of Justification and remit Original and actual sin through a "Baptism of Desire" and therefore, can enter Heaven as Catholics.
And they know this with a certainty of fact as to make the hypothetical scenario nothing less than a dogma of the Faith. And they know this, how? as if they could ever see the dead....
No, it is just an "easy way out" so they do not have to admit their explicit heresy which is that non Catholics can be saved. These Modernists always start by re affirming the dogma, just to destroy it a few sentences later.
-
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.
The diluters of EENS never actually say the non-Christians can be saved, Arvinger. Do not expect an honest answer from these Modernists. They fabricate loopholes such as the above. The made-up scenario is that these non-Christians are somehow invisibly transformed into Catholics at the last very second of their lives, enter the state of Justification and remit Original and actual sin through a "Baptism of Desire" and therefore, can enter Heaven as Catholics.
And they know this with a certainty of fact as to make the hypothetical scenario nothing less than a dogma of the Faith. And they know this, how? as if they could ever see the dead....
No, it is just an "easy way out" so they do not have to admit their explicit heresy which is that non Catholics can be saved. These Modernists always start by re affirming the dogma, just to destroy it a few sentences later.
Cantarella will quote "Fr. Wathen" as a source, when he was merely a loner priest after Vatican II, completely unrecognized by the Rome that Cantarella now recognizes as legitimate with Francis as a legitimate pope. I will quote from true magisterial sources starting from the catechism under St. Pius V up until the catechism of St. Pius X, and in between, which all teach baptism of desire. If they diluted EENS, then all those popes were heretics, but these Feeneyites shut their mouths about that point because they want to dishonestly not turn you off. A political move.
Yes, of course conversion is invisible. Cantarella's own modernist Church points to non-Catholics and says they are saved. Traditionalists like me don't. The teaching is always a POSSIBILITY and nobody can ever point to someone and say they are saved. Cantarella's condemnations should really be aimed at her Pope because that is what her words really condemn in diluting baptism of desire into universal salvation, including the Mass of the Resurrection instead of the Requiem Mass. What was condemned in Mortalium Animos in 1928 was actually foisted on the Church with a fixation at Vatican II, and Cantarella is a part of that.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.
The diluters of EENS never actually say the non-Christians can be saved, Arvinger. Do not expect an honest answer from these Modernists. They fabricate loopholes such as the above. The made-up scenario is that these non-Christians are somehow invisibly transformed into Catholics at the last very second of their lives, enter the state of Justification and remit Original and actual sin through a "Baptism of Desire" and therefore, can enter Heaven as Catholics.
And they know this with a certainty of fact as to make the hypothetical scenario nothing less than a dogma of the Faith. And they know this, how? as if they could ever see the dead....
No, it is just an "easy way out" so they do not have to admit their explicit heresy which is that non Catholics can be saved. These Modernists always start by re affirming the dogma, just to destroy it a few sentences later.
Cantarella will quote "Fr. Wathen" as a source, when he was merely a loner priest after Vatican II, completely unrecognized by the Rome that Cantarella now recognizes as legitimate with Francis as a legitimate pope. I will quote from true magisterial sources starting from the catechism under St. Pius V up until the catechism of St. Pius X, and in between, which all teach baptism of desire. If they diluted EENS, then all those popes were heretics, but these Feeneyites shut their mouths about that point because they want to dishonestly not turn you off. A political move.
Yes, of course conversion is invisible. Cantarella's own modernist Church points to non-Catholics and says they are saved. Traditionalists like me don't. The teaching is always a POSSIBILITY and nobody can ever point to someone and say they are saved. Cantarella's condemnations should really be aimed at her Pope because that is what her words really condemn in diluting baptism of desire into universal salvation, including the Mass of the Resurrection instead of the Requiem Mass. What was condemned in Mortalium Animos in 1928 was actually foisted on the Church with a fixation at Vatican II, and Cantarella is a part of that.
Fr. Wathen speaks the Catholic faith clearly and explains what he says in clear detail so that any Catholic understands it. If you do not understand it, then what does that say about you?
You can keep pitting catechisms and your version of the UOM against dogmatic decrees all you want, perhaps some day you will realize that all you are doing is pitting catechisms and your version of the UOM against dogmatic decrees.
FYI, because dogmatic decrees are foundational and are the highest of all authority, they will never lose.
-
I would not use Fr. Wathen as a source for anything, since he held the OCAC error.
In fact, one could theorise he was such a staunch defenders of EENS just because his own understanding of Church membership was so distorted and inclusive he could tolerate the idea.
Here's a quote I found on a banned site:
The theological dogma which they find obstructive to their view of things is the Indelible Character of Baptism,” which we are taught about in the earliest years of our instruction. This Indelible Character signifies that he who has received it has been made an adoptive child of God, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and given a certain equality with Christ in the love of the Father (because he is a member of Christ). This adoption cannot be lost by any sin or renunciation; it remains for his eternal glory or shame. This is one of the chief lessons our Lord taught us in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Just like BODomaniacs, who extend membership to potentially anyone via invincible ignorance and last minute BODorama, OCAC extends it to all validly baptised individuals.
Therefore he doesn't qualify as an actual defender of the dogma... he circuмvents it via distortion, similarly to the "soul of the Church" adherents but differently and less heretically perhaps.
Cantarella, do you share his view? Please be honest.
-
I would not use Fr. Wathen as a source for anything, since he held the OCAC error.
In fact, one could theorise he was such a staunch defenders of EENS just because his own understanding of Church membership was so distorted and inclusive he could tolerate the idea.
Here's a quote I found on a banned site:
The theological dogma which they find obstructive to their view of things is the Indelible Character of Baptism,” which we are taught about in the earliest years of our instruction. This Indelible Character signifies that he who has received it has been made an adoptive child of God, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and given a certain equality with Christ in the love of the Father (because he is a member of Christ). This adoption cannot be lost by any sin or renunciation; it remains for his eternal glory or shame. This is one of the chief lessons our Lord taught us in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Just like BODomaniacs, who extend membership to potentially anyone via invincible ignorance and last minute BODorama, OCAC extends it to all validly baptised individuals.
No, this is your own invention. This is where you are "stuck in a rut". We've been over this but you remain stuck on it, but that is of your own invention. It is not what Fr. Wathen ever wrote. If you do not believe the adoption can never be lost, you have yet to prove it.
Therefore he doesn't qualify as an actual defender of the dogma... he circuмvents it via distortion, similarly to the "soul of the Church" adherents but differently and less heretically perhaps.
Cantarella, do you share his view? Please be honest.
Cantarella can speak for herself, all I will say is that you are straining out a gnat, to swallow a camel.
-
This may be the wrong thread for this but what the heck, may as well post it here to give the whole idea why one who is sede or has sede sympathies has a major problem with OCAC. (Desmond quoted item 6)
Fr. James Wathen on The Dimond Brothers (9/5/2004)
1. They call themselves "Brothers," but neither of them has ever made a standard novitiate, which the Code says is strictly necessary for professed religious. They call themselves "Brothers" because this lends prestige to their opinions.
2. The two Brothers do not pretend to live a monastic life. Their vocation, as they see it, demands that they busy themselves in controversy. They think that the Church is better served by their spending their time producing various kinds of works of theological criticism, than in prayer and contemplation, which is the traditional obligation of monks.
3. Neither of the Brothers has had the opportunity for normal catechetical instruction, let alone theological training. They imagine that this does not matter, and it does not to the un-instructed. To those of us who have "taken all the courses," their inadequacy is a glaring reality.
4. Like all other "Sedevacantists," they have an appalling hatred of Pope John Paul II, as if he alone were the main cause of the Church's present malaise. He is not. The Church's present condition is due to the Great Conspiracy, the World Revolution, about which we have been warned by popes of former times and by Christ, our Lady, and other messengers from Heaven. This Conspiracy has filled the offices of the Church with its agents, all of whom are bent on converting it into the "religious" arm of the One World Church.
5. In order to get Pope John Paul out of his office, it is necessary, as they see it, to get him out of the Church. Any theological principle which prevents them from doing this must be ignored or denied, and anyone who does not see things their way is a "heretic," a "schismatic," or something of the sort. I did not see whether Brother Peter considers me in or outside the Church.
6. The theological dogma which they find obstructive to their view of things is the Indelible Character of Baptism," which we are taught about in the earliest years of our instruction. This Indelible Character signifies that he who has received it has been made an adoptive child of God, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and given a certain equality with Christ in the love of the Father (because he is a member of Christ). This adoption cannot be lost by any sin or renunciation; it remains for his eternal glory or shame. This is one of the chief lessons our Lord taught us in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
7. Certain texts of popes and saints seem to suggest that an individual can be expelled or can himself withdraw from the communion of the faithful. All baptized Catholics, whether they are clerics or lay people, can estrange themselves from God and Christ and their holy Mother the Church by sin, including the sin of heresy (which is nothing more than the denial of a doctrine), but they can never become "ex-Catholics," so that they would lose the Indelible Mark of Baptism, and their status of adoptive children.
8. I do not want to overlook the fact that there is nothing heretical in "Brother's" list. It is surely not a heresy, nor an act of schism, to maintain that John Paul II is the true Pope, even though a bad one, or to include his name in the Canon of the Mass. Neither is it a heresy to say that "once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I think Sedevacantists are inclined to think that it is grave heresy to disagree with them.
9. I have repeated often enough that as Catholics and as human beings we have both the right and the obligation to judge the opinions, positions, and ideas of everyone else. Our life in this world consists in making judgements about other people--whether they can be trusted, whether they are telling the truth, whether they will repay us if we lend to them, etc.; and to judge their opinions, whether they are true or false, right or wrong. As Catholics, we must always be wary of heresy from every quarter, including him who sits on the Chair of St. Peter--as he is not personally infallible.
10. The law of the Church forbids us to pass judgement on the STATUS of the reigning pope, whether he is the pope, whether we are bound to obey him in all religious matters that are not contrary to the Faith. I trust it is not necessary to repeat that the pope is infallible in his TEACHING OFFICE, not in his GOVERNING OFFICE. This is why we do not have to accept the New Mass, because its issuance is a part of the governing office (even though THERE IS NO LAW ESTABLISHING IT AS THE LITURGY OF THE ROMAN RITE).
10. Keep in mind also that there is a very great difference between the pope's or any other cleric's propounding erroneous views, which Pope John Paul does all the time, and their endeavoring to impose such views upon us as a matter of doctrine and salvation. Pope John Paul has never commanded us to believe any of his heretical opinions under pain of sin. Sedevacantists cannot comprehend this simple truth.
11. Sedavacantists also have the idea that anything a legitimate pope teaches becomes a part of the "Sacred Magisterium." This is entirely wrong. Only those teachings which are conformable to the body of teaching which has accuмulated through the years from the days of the Apostles, whose teaching we refer to as the "Deposit of Faith" is a part of the Magisterium. Anything that is a variance therewith is not.
12. The two "Brothers" Dimond are evil little men. Without any authorization and without proper theological training, they have endeavored to establish themselves as teachers of the faithful and "certifiers" of all priests in this country. They make a lot of money with their misleading publications, tapes, etc., and they spend much time on the phone persuading people to stay away from the Masses of non-Sedevacantist priests. Who knows how many Catholics of good will have been persuaded to stay home for months on end, even years, rather than attend Mass, confess their sins, and receive Holy Communion? I urge everyone to give these men a wide berth; do not buy or circulate their materials, even those which are acceptable. Do not send them money. Beware of wolves in monk's habits. - Fr. James Wathen.
-
Yes, I consider Fr. Wathen to have been mistaken on OCAC. I have not found support for this from any Catholic theologian. Every theologian I have ever read states that membership in the Church can be lost by baptized Catholics.
-
No, this is your own invention. This is where you are "stuck in a rut". We've been over this but you remain stuck on it, but that is of your own invention. It is not what Fr. Wathen ever wrote. If you do not believe the adoption can never be lost, you have yet to prove it.
How is it my own invention if he says it's the Indelible Mark of Baptism that makes one a member, and membership is irrevocable just like the aforementioned mark?
How are you going to exclude non visible Catholics (protestants, orientals, easterns, mormons etc.) if they are validly baptised?
If you introduce the requirement of FAITH (which is actual Catholic understanding) then it becomes obviously revocable, and doesn't coincide with Baptism no more.
It seems to me it is you who introduce it, due to your own understanding.
If there are Wathen quotes where he explains the issue in more detail, please post them.
Cantarella can speak for herself,
Yes, that is why I asked her specifically.
all I will say is that you are straining out a gnat, to swallow a camel.
What I am saying is that it's possibly unwise to use someone holding an error directly related to EENS, as an authority on the defense of the very dogma.
All sorts of people have held to all sorts of error, this doesn't disqualify them as legitimate sources, but if the error pertains to the very subject at hand, then it becomes problematic, as all his reasoning might have been vitiated by it.
There's too much confusion as is.
-
Yes, I consider Fr. Wathen to have been mistaken on OCAC. I have not found support for this from any Catholic theologian. Every theologian I have ever read states that membership in the Church can be lost by baptized Catholics.
I cannot disagree as I have never found any theologian to preach OCAC either, yet if not OCAC, then how does one explain that Trent teaches in danger of death, "it has *always* been very piously observed" that the fallen away or apostate or heretic or excom or etc., may receive the sacrament of penance?
Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.
-
No, this is your own invention. This is where you are "stuck in a rut". We've been over this but you remain stuck on it, but that is of your own invention. It is not what Fr. Wathen ever wrote. If you do not believe the adoption can never be lost, you have yet to prove it.
How is it my own invention if he says it's the Indelible Mark of Baptism that makes one a member, and membership is irrevocable just like the aforementioned mark?
How are you going to exclude non visible Catholics (protestants, orientals, easterns, mormons etc.) if they are validly baptised?
If you introduce the requirement of FAITH (which is actual Catholic understanding) then it becomes obviously revocable, and doesn't coincide with Baptism no more.
It seems to me it is you who introduce it, due to your own understanding.
If there are Wathen quotes where he explains the issue in more detail, please post them.
Cantarella can speak for herself,
Yes, that is why I asked her specifically.
all I will say is that you are straining out a gnat, to swallow a camel.
What I am saying is that it's possibly unwise to use someone holding an error directly related to EENS, as an authority on the defense of the very dogma.
All sorts of people have held to all sorts of error, this doesn't disqualify them as legitimate sources, but if the error pertains to the very subject at hand, then it becomes problematic, as all his reasoning might have been vitiated by it.
There's too much confusion as is.
You have never explained why you think OCAC is wrong, all you ever said was you doubted the sincerity of the penitent could be proved, which does not explain or prove anything.
And as I noted, OCAC needs to be false for Sedes, as it is one important ingredient in the whole non-Catholic = can't be pope argument.
-
You have never explained why you think OCAC is wrong, all you ever said was you doubted the sincerity of the penitent could be proved, which does not explain or prove anything.
First of all, you always refused to even define what OCAC even is.
I have worked on the assumption that Membership=Baptismal Mark as Wathen seemed to think judging from what I've read.
It seems though you only limit, somehow, membership to "professing" people at one time or another of their life, ergo not simply validly baptised people.
And as I noted, OCAC needs to be false for Sedes, as it is one important ingredient in the whole non-Catholic = can't be pope argument.
It is true OCAC is a great tool to oppose SV, as it guarantees that literally no matter what a Pontiff (or any prelate) will be inside the Church.
Not only via jurisdictional arguments, but literally a member of the Church.
Obviously it's not the case, as we know heresy schism and apostasy cause one to cease being a member. We also know as I showed in the Synod of Pistoia thread, that it is untrue an anathema needs a formal declaration to be efficacious, or that excommunication is limited to the external forum.
-
I cannot disagree as I have never found any theologian to preach OCAC either, yet if not OCAC, then how does one explain that Trent teaches in danger of death, "it has *always* been very piously observed" that the fallen away or apostate or heretic or excom or etc., may receive the sacrament of penance?
Probably Ladislaus will correctly answer this soon enough.
However I will reiterate my explanation:
the Church presumes them to be repentant, of their sins including Heresy, when sanctioning (making licit) their Penance.
Because of the extreme circuмstances (danger of imminent death), they are allowed to skip the normal canonical iter, in light of the principles of:
'Necessity makes licit what is illicit.' and 'The highest law is the salvation of Souls'
If, they are genuine about their intention, they are instantly reconciled and die as members (and probably saved).
PS: in fact it's a case similar to the one described in the Sedevacantism thread per which Catholics in Eastern Schismatic's countries were licitly allowed to, under danger of death, partake in their Sacraments.
-
You have never explained why you think OCAC is wrong, all you ever said was you doubted the sincerity of the penitent could be proved, which does not explain or prove anything.
First of all, you always refused to even define what OCAC even is.
I have worked on the assumption that Membership=Baptismal Mark as Wathen seemed to think judging from what I've read.
It seems though you only limit, somehow, membership to "professing" people at one time or another of their life, ergo not simply validly baptised people.
I only place the limits that the Church places, which means once a person has reached the age of reason and has partaken in at least the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist, they will be OCAC if for no other reason than in danger of death, the Church teaches that is a practice of the Church, ie "it has always been very piously observed within the Church" that they may partake of those sacraments again - THAT is something non-Catholics are not permitted to do.
That is the exact same teaching I learned as a child so for me, it is very easy to accept it. If I am wrong, then no big deal, I am willing to admit it, but non-Catholics cannot partake of the sacrament of penance without first abjuring their heresies and being baptized. For me, that's all there is to that. For you and others, obviously it is more complicated for reasons that ultimately do not matter.
For me, I understand completely that those who die excom/apostasy/heresy/schism will have much greater torments to suffer in hell because at one time, they had the faith and knew better. But what does it matter at that point whether they died Catholic or not?
-
I cannot disagree as I have never found any theologian to preach OCAC either, yet if not OCAC, then how does one explain that Trent teaches in danger of death, "it has *always* been very piously observed" that the fallen away or apostate or heretic or excom or etc., may receive the sacrament of penance?
That's because, normally, leaving membership in the Church would require a formal profession to be readmitted into the Church (an abjuration of heresy, etc.) and/or a lifting of the excommunication. Apostasy (a reserved sin) or excommunication reserved to the bishop or to the Holy See cannot ordinarily be forgiven by the average Confessor. But the Church has always made an exception in danger of death. Of course this would NOT apply to an unrepentant apostate, heretic, or excommunicate because such a one would not have the requisite contrition for absolution.
-
I cannot disagree as I have never found any theologian to preach OCAC either, yet if not OCAC, then how does one explain that Trent teaches in danger of death, "it has *always* been very piously observed" that the fallen away or apostate or heretic or excom or etc., may receive the sacrament of penance?
That's because, normally, leaving membership in the Church would require a formal profession to be readmitted into the Church (an abjuration of heresy, etc.) and/or a lifting of the excommunication. Apostasy (a reserved sin) or excommunication reserved to the bishop or to the Holy See cannot ordinarily be forgiven by the average Confessor. But the Church has always made an exception in danger of death. Of course this would NOT apply to an unrepentant apostate, heretic, or excommunicate because such a one would not have the requisite contrition for absolution.
Yes, this is all what the Church teaches.
So then the whole excom/apostasy/heresy/schism/etc. that makes one no longer a Catholic(?) is Church law, not Divine Law.
As such, would OCAC be Divine Law? If so, then it would make sense to say that it is by the Church's law that the apostate/excom/etc. loses membership until the formal requirements you mention above were met - but the Church waves those requirements in danger of death.
I ask this because if it were Divine Law that the excom/heretic became non-Catholic, then even in danger of death, I don't see how the Church could ever permit the heretic penitent to partake of the sacrament without at least a formal abjuration.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.
The diluters of EENS never actually say the non-Christians can be saved, Arvinger. Do not expect an honest answer from these Modernists. They fabricate loopholes such as the above. The made-up scenario is that these non-Christians are somehow invisibly transformed into Catholics at the last very second of their lives, enter the state of Justification and remit Original and actual sin through a "Baptism of Desire" and therefore, can enter Heaven as Catholics.
And they know this with a certainty of fact as to make the hypothetical scenario nothing less than a dogma of the Faith. And they know this, how? as if they could ever see the dead....
No, it is just an "easy way out" so they do not have to admit their explicit heresy which is that non Catholics can be saved. These Modernists always start by re affirming the dogma, just to destroy it a few sentences later.
Cantarella will quote "Fr. Wathen" as a source, when he was merely a loner priest after Vatican II, completely unrecognized by the Rome that Cantarella now recognizes as legitimate with Francis as a legitimate pope. I will quote from true magisterial sources starting from the catechism under St. Pius V up until the catechism of St. Pius X, and in between, which all teach baptism of desire. If they diluted EENS, then all those popes were heretics, but these Feeneyites shut their mouths about that point because they want to dishonestly not turn you off. A political move.
Yes, of course conversion is invisible. Cantarella's own modernist Church points to non-Catholics and says they are saved. Traditionalists like me don't. The teaching is always a POSSIBILITY and nobody can ever point to someone and say they are saved. Cantarella's condemnations should really be aimed at her Pope because that is what her words really condemn in diluting baptism of desire into universal salvation, including the Mass of the Resurrection instead of the Requiem Mass. What was condemned in Mortalium Animos in 1928 was actually foisted on the Church with a fixation at Vatican II, and Cantarella is a part of that.
Do not be silly.
The only reason of the particular quote is because it happens to be a very good one from Fr. Wathen, especially in the term of "diluters" to name heretics such as Mc Cork, Nado, Rube, Certitude, etcs. These are not blunt deniers, only "diluters" of EENS. They operate in a more destructive manner therefore than the ones who bluntly deny EENS like the liberals Novus Ordo.
Nice try to deviate the topic into the "source" instead of the point being made, Mc Cork. Point, by the way, that it is easily demonstrated by sources of the highest Magisterial authority such as Ecuмenical Councils, ex-cathedra statements and Papal pronouncements, as it has been done many times before in the past.
-
So then the whole excom/apostasy/heresy/schism/etc. that makes one no longer a Catholic(?) is Church law, not Divine Law.
No, what's Church law is the stipulation of the conditions by which a repentant apostate/heretic/schism/excom could re-enter the Church. These conditions for re-entry are lifted by Church law for those in danger of death. Of course, secret apostates/etc. would remain members of the Church. These are all external forum considerations.
-
I only place the limits that the Church places, which means once a person has reached the age of reason and has partaken in at least the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist(...)
I don't believe this to be the case, as we can deduce from the requirements for Salvation.
Baptism alone suffices to make one a member (initially and necessarily, but not sufficiently as for permanence), since:
1)EENS
2)A person, having only received the Sacrament of Baptism, and holding the true Faith may be saved
3)" " " " " " " " " is a member of the Church
-
So then the whole excom/apostasy/heresy/schism/etc. that makes one no longer a Catholic(?) is Church law, not Divine Law.
No, we know this to be Divine Law from dogmatic pronouncements, and happening regardless of formal sanction from the Church.
As such, would OCAC be Divine Law? If so, then it would make sense to say that it is by the Church's law that the apostate/excom/etc.
According to my view, OCAC in fact cannot possibly be true precisely because against Divine law.
..loses membership until the formal requirements you mention above were met - but the Church waves those requirements in danger of death.
In my opinion, the Church merely recognises superior and antecedent actions in the Divine realm. Apostolic Power cannot go against Divine Law.
I ask this because if it were Divine Law that the excom/heretic became non-Catholic, then even in danger of death, I don't see how the Church could ever permit the heretic penitent to partake of the sacrament without at least a formal abjuration.
As per what I said above, the Church presumes the Penitent is in good faith and willing to be reconciled, hic et nunc, if not already reconciled by Divine Law.
If the Penitent were to feign, or be uncooperative, the Sacrament would either be ineffective or, as the latter, be halted.
-
Of course, secret apostates/etc. would remain members of the Church. These are all external forum considerations.
I've heard this mentioned before, possibly in relation to Bellarmino.
I don't understand how this would work.
I suppose he theorised this in order for all the jurisdictional issues to make sense in such a case, for a cleric etc.
But formal heresy, "in the internal forum", exists and has effect regardless of we the mortal people being able to see it.
It's one thing the interior, or divine, realm, supernatural in essence and another the visible and manifest (external forum).
What happens in the case of a formal heretic, non manifest, as to its jurisdiction is in my opinion the Church supplying it automatically were this case to arise, as to conform the Divine with the Apparent, for the benefit of the faithful.
He would still de facto be valid and his acts licit, but as a private person, he would be outside and a non member.
Thinking back to the Schismatic "orthodox" example from the Sedevacantism thread, that's exactly what happened and how it could have possibly been licit for Catholics to receive Sacraments from them.
The Church (this time consciously and actively by means of Papal pronouncement) supplying jurisdiction on a case to case basis, to clerics who were non members and outside the Church.
-
So then the whole excom/apostasy/heresy/schism/etc. that makes one no longer a Catholic(?) is Church law, not Divine Law.
No, what's Church law is the stipulation of the conditions by which a repentant apostate/heretic/schism/excom could re-enter the Church. These conditions for re-entry are lifted by Church law for those in danger of death. Of course, secret apostates/etc. would remain members of the Church. These are all external forum considerations.
Ok, I understand the conditions normally required for "re-entry" are lifted when there is danger of death.
We all understand that only Catholics may partake in the sacrament of penance, which is to say that non-Catholics are not permitted to even approach that sacrament.
So if OCAC is false, the question remains - According to Trent, without abjuration or otherwise any official, formal, or ceremonial renunciation of their sin/heresy/apostasy etc., on account of danger of death, the non-Catholic penitent who sincerely seeks repentance, partakes of the sacrament of penance - at what point or when did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
-
So then the whole excom/apostasy/heresy/schism/etc. that makes one no longer a Catholic(?) is Church law, not Divine Law.
No, what's Church law is the stipulation of the conditions by which a repentant apostate/heretic/schism/excom could re-enter the Church. These conditions for re-entry are lifted by Church law for those in danger of death. Of course, secret apostates/etc. would remain members of the Church. These are all external forum considerations.
Ok, I understand the conditions normally required for "re-entry" are lifted when there is danger of death.
We all understand that only Catholics may partake in the sacrament of penance, which is to say that non-Catholics are not permitted to even approach that sacrament.
So if OCAC is false, the question remains - According to Trent, without abjuration or otherwise any official, formal, or ceremonial renunciation of their sin/heresy/apostasy etc., on account of danger of death, the non-Catholic penitent who sincerely seeks repentance, partakes of the sacrament of penance - at what point or when did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
The Church has always considered Protestants with valid baptism to be non-Catholics. This is a non-issue and a no-brainer.
-
Baptism (of water) imprints upon a soul an eternal mark which cannot be ever erased. It is an indelible mark precisely because is eternal and one cannot lose it even by committing the sin of Apostasy (or heresy) which causes a total loss of Sanctifying Grace. It is because of this indelible mark that Baptism cannot be ever repeated, even in Apostates reverting to the Faith, as the Holy Roman Church has taught through Her Infallible Magisterium:
Among these sacraments there are three, Baptism ... which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person.(Denz.695)
If anyone says that in... Baptism... there is not imprinted on the soul a sign, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, on account of which it cannot be repeated: let him be anathema. (Denz. 852)
If anyone shall say that Baptism truly and rightly administered must be repeated for him who has denied the faith of Christ among infidels, when he is converted : let him be anathema.(Denz. 867)
The matter is settled.
-
So if OCAC is false, the question remains - According to Trent, without abjuration or otherwise any official, formal, or ceremonial renunciation of their sin/heresy/apostasy etc., on account of danger of death, the non-Catholic penitent who sincerely seeks repentance, partakes of the sacrament of penance - at what point or when did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
I would imagine at the point of their absolution. In the Traditional Rite of Confession, the priest explicitly lifts all canonical penalties the penitent may have incurred. Normally the reserved ones (due to apostasy for instance) cannot be lifted by an ordinary Confessor, but in this case the Church makes the concession. Not unlike when Francis allowed all priests to absolve people of the sin of abortion (something normally reserved to the bishop). Of course, if the person were to recover, he would still be obliged to make an abjuration of heresy in the external forum.
-
Cantarella, the character of Baptism, though, is much more than simply an unrepeatability marker. It ontologically transforms the soul into an image of Our Lord, not unlike Holy Orders but to a lesser extent (Vatican II had this quite right), and into a member of the Body of Christ. It's only because the Father recognizes His Son in us that He treats us like adopted children (as St. Paul describes it) and we can enter INSIDE the life of the Holy Trinity. According to the Church Fathers, this transformation makes us like "gods" as it were. See, in our natural capacity, we human beings lack the faculties or capabilities to see God SUPERnaturally, to see Him as He is and therefore to enter into the life of the Holy Trinity. But this character bestows upon our nature this missing supernatural faculty. Just as we have natural faculties of sight, hearing, and reason, this gives us the supernatural faculties so that we are capable of the beatific vision ... it's like a new supernatural sense. That's why I have an extremely difficult time with BoD. I would rather that the BoD theorists had asserted that those saved by BoD also received this character somehow. But that doesn't make any sense either. Some of the Church Fathers speculated that God even raised the OT just momentarily from the dead in order to have them baptized. THAT'S how indispensible they considered the Sacrament of Confession and the SEAL (character) that it imparts. But due to BoDism this character has been grossly underemphasized.
-
Cantarella: could you please answer my question about you endorsing OCAC?
Ladislaus: could you please address my doubts expressed in my few last posts, in particular the one directed to you?
Stubborn: would you mind commenting on my syllogistic reasoning regarding Church membership +EENS?
Thanks in advance.
-
I only place the limits that the Church places, which means once a person has reached the age of reason and has partaken in at least the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist(...)
I don't believe this to be the case, as we can deduce from the requirements for Salvation.
Baptism alone suffices to make one a member (initially and necessarily, but not sufficiently as for permanence), since:
1)EENS
2)A person, having only received the Sacrament of Baptism, and holding the true Faith may be saved
3)" " " " " " " " " is a member of the Church
Well, yes, I agree with your syllogism, but the reality is that we're pretty safe when we say that nobody is going to keep the faith if they've never even made their first confession / communion. It is one of the main reasons Pope St. Pius X lowered the "age of reason" to 7 years old - and made frequent communion the rule.
-
Desmond, I have given your question some thought myself over the years. Why are merely internal heretics still members of the Church for St. Robert? It's because he's very clear in emphasizing, as Trent was, against the Protestant heresies, that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY on earth. He would not say that an occult heretic is a non-member of the Church in the internal forum. He would say that such a one remains a member but a dead member (just like anyone who might be in a state of grave sin). Only manifest heresy would render them non-members of the visible society. That's my take on it.
-
Well, yes, I agree with your syllogism, but the reality is that we're pretty safe when we say that nobody is going to keep the faith if they've never even made their first confession / communion. It is one of the main reasons Pope St. Pius X lowered the "age of reason" to 7 years old - and made frequent communion the rule.
Yes they would be exceptional cases.
Still, membership does not require those two Sacraments you mentioned.
In fact, I would say, all validly baptised people, until they deviate from the Faith, are members.
The same syllogism can be applied to baptised infants:
1)EENS
2)baptised infants are saved 100%
3)baptised infants are (already) members
Which is why I am puzzled as to OCAC not leading directly to a completely deranged concepts of the Church including everyone validly baptised.
It is apparently an inescapable consequence.
Or, you can add ulterior requirements and/or dropthe "Baptism" part altogether.
But then you end up with the actual Catholic understandment, as Faith does not leave any indelible mark, and it can be lost.
-
Desmond, I have given your question some thought myself over the years. Why are merely internal heretics still members of the Church for St. Robert? It's because he's very clear in emphasizing, as Trent was, against the Protestant heresies, that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY on earth. He would not say that an occult heretic is a non-member of the Church in the internal forum. He would say that such a one remains a member but a dead member (just like anyone who might be in a state of grave sin). Only manifest heresy would render them non-members of the visible society. That's my take on it.
I see.
However he himself did not have membership coincide with visible profession, as he taught of the "soul of the Church" dichotomy.
I don't see how there could be invisible members, who are only united in Faith to the Church, without actual partaking, as far as anyone understands, without having visible "members" who are only apparently united but are actually not (ie: secret heretics, schismatics, apostates).
I guess it's a primarily gnoseological and semantic problem.
We can, however, derive membership in the internal forum through the dogma of EENS and other infallible qualifiers as far as Salvation is concerned.
It pretty much shows membership coincides with Faith, with Baptism being an absolutely necessary prerequisite, or gateway, for it.
-
Desmond, I have given your question some thought myself over the years. Why are merely internal heretics still members of the Church for St. Robert? It's because he's very clear in emphasizing, as Trent was, against the Protestant heresies, that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY on earth. He would not say that an occult heretic is a non-member of the Church in the internal forum. He would say that such a one remains a member but a dead member (just like anyone who might be in a state of grave sin). Only manifest heresy would render them non-members of the visible society. That's my take on it.
I see.
However he himself did not have membership coincide with visible profession, as he taught of the "soul of the Church" dichotomy.
I don't see how there could be invisible members, who are only united in Faith to the Church, without actual partaking, as far as anyone understands, without having visible "members" who are only apparently united but are actually not (ie: secret heretics, schismatics, apostates).
I guess it's a primarily gnoseological and semantic problem.
We can, however, derive membership in the internal forum through the dogma of EENS and other infallible qualifiers as far as Salvation is concerned.
It pretty much shows membership coincides with Faith, with Baptism being an absolutely necessary prerequisite, or gateway, for it.
St. Robert laid out four requirements for membership ... if I recall correctly. One was indeed visible profession of the faith (for adults obviously and supplied for those below the age of reason) and another was the reception of the Sacraments. I believe that he articulated that soul of the Church dichotomy precisely in order to explain how catechumens who died before Baptism might be saved. But even then he was clear to state that they received the Sacrament of Baptism in voto and not that they were saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. When he listed these four criteria for membership, he excluded catechumens from membership in the Church on the grounds of their not having received the Sacraments. But it almost appears as if he wasn't taking this explanation into account when he speculated that catechumens might be saved. So it's hard to say without having a chance to talk to him directly.
-
Only formal heretics are considered non-members of the Church. This is because material heretics can be hidden as no one can enter other's internal forum. St. Bellarmine says that schismatics are outside the Church; but not because they do not have Faith nor Sacraments (which they do, according to Bellamine) but for this single reason: they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.
That single reason suffices to place them outside the Church.
By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.
"All others" refer to the validly Baptized.
Infidels, catechumens, ex-communicates are excluded from the Church. Not a mentioned word on heretics, though.
-
Only formal heretics are considered non-members of the Church. This is because material heretics can be hidden as no one can enter other's internal forum. St. Bellarmine says that schismatics are outside the Church; but not because they do not have Faith nor Sacraments (which they do, according to Bellamine) but for this single reason: they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.
That single reason suffices to place them outside the Church.
By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.
"All others" refer to the validly Baptized.
Infidels, catechumens, ex-communicates are excluded from the Church. Not a mentioned word on heretics, though.
I take that back. Heretics are actually mentioned in Bellarmine's definition. They are also excluded and classified as infidels under the first category:
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
-
Only formal heretics are considered non-members of the Church.
MANIFEST formal heretics. One can be a formal heretic in the internal forum, but it means nothing unless it becomes manifest. In addition, in the public forum, "formal" heresy would be ascertained due to pertinacity in the face of the Church's teaching authority.
"All others" refer to the validly Baptized.
Well, it refers to all those who are not excluded by the first three criteria. I guess I remembered incorrectly when I stated there were four.
So ...
IF you have the Sacraments,
AND
IF you profess the true faith,
AND
IF you are subject to the Holy Father,
THEN you are a member of the Church.
In speaking of "all others" he's referring to those NOT excluded by any of the above three criteria. He's saying that even if you're in a state of grave sin, then by virtue of the above three criteria you ARE indeed a member of the Church.
-
Infidels, catechumens, ex-communicates are excluded from the Church. Not a mentioned word on heretics, though.
I don't have the full passage, but these would fall away due to the profession of the true faith criterion. When St. Robert speaks of the heretic pope, he clearly states that the reason he would cease to be pope is because due to the heresy he would cease to be a member of the Church and a non-member cannot be pope. So to suggest that St. Robert might have believed that heretics are not excluded from membership in the Church is completely wrong. You're taking this line entirely out of context.
-
I take that back. Heretics are actually mentioned in Bellarmine's definition. They are also excluded and classified as infidels under the first category:
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
Sorry. I responded to your earlier post before reading this. No, it's quite clear that St. Robert Bellarmine excludes heretics from membership in the Church. In fact, I have not found ONE Catholic theologian who did not. Which is why I disagree with Father Wathen's OCAC theory. No theologian has ever held this. In fact, it's more in line with Vatican II thinking. Cf. the recent comments by Bergoglio claiming that Protestants are members of the Church. Dimond brothers called him out for heresy on this point, and they'd be correct. I have great respect for Father Wathen, but he is NOT some kind of infallible god, and he CLEARLY got this wrong. Stubborn defends him tooth and nail because he's one of the very few who truly believed in EENS, but I call it as I see it without respect for persons. Truth comes first above loyalty to specific individuals.
-
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
Sorry. I responded to your earlier post before reading this. No, it's quite clear that St. Robert Bellarmine excludes heretics from membership in the Church. (...)
As I said his further (and maybe later?) additional requirement of the heresy being manifest makes no real sense though.
If, as it seems, the reason "heretics" and "apostates" "fall away" is deviation from the Faith, which regards the internal forum, and becomes explicit in the external forum only due to their willing choice, and that alone, it should happen regardless.
Much the same as people who do not externally profess the Faith, for whatever reason, yet believe it internally truly and honestly, are still member of the Church.
Unless feigning devotion is the same as the real thing.
His reasoning can be shown to be false via indirect deduction.
If membership did coincide with profession, and not actual genuine belief (holding actual Faith):
it would require heresy, and therefore sin, being dependent on accidental(and aleatory) third party determination, which we know to be false:
sin is regardless of any external perception, past the perpetrator's in some cases.
In fact, it would render latae sententiae excommunication pointless, along with anathemas, which we know it is not the case.
Additionally, it could also be demonstrated using the following reasoning:
1)"...excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent."
2)hidden heretics are under ipso facto excommunication due to their heresy(ies)
3)hidden heretics are not members of the Church (until they repent)
Cantarella: I take it you don't adhere to OCAC then. Good.
-
I take that back. Heretics are actually mentioned in Bellarmine's definition. They are also excluded and classified as infidels under the first category:
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
Sorry. I responded to your earlier post before reading this. No, it's quite clear that St. Robert Bellarmine excludes heretics from membership in the Church. In fact, I have not found ONE Catholic theologian who did not. Which is why I disagree with Father Wathen's OCAC theory. No theologian has ever held this. In fact, it's more in line with Vatican II thinking. Cf. the recent comments by Bergoglio claiming that Protestants are members of the Church. Dimond brothers called him out for heresy on this point, and they'd be correct. I have great respect for Father Wathen, but he is NOT some kind of infallible god, and he CLEARLY got this wrong. Stubborn defends him tooth and nail because he's one of the very few who truly believed in EENS, but I call it as I see it without respect for persons. Truth comes first above loyalty to specific individuals.
I have not found something to disagree with him on yet.
Because heretics can go to confession in danger of death, heretics are permitted to do that which only Catholics can do. If heretics were not Catholics, then they could not go to confession at all - simplistic maybe, but I do not see how it can be argued.
Earlier you supposed the heretic became Catholic upon absolution, but upon absolution, his sin is forgiven - he *had* to be Catholic *before* he could even go to confession to receive absolution.
Which once again leaves the question unanswered - if OCAC is false, then at what point prior to going to confession, did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
-
As an aside, a year or so ago when I read OCAC in Who Shall Ascend?, I did some searching and came across the DB website where they called it heretical. The only thing I read on their website on the subject was something they presumably on purpose misquoted Fr. Wathen from the book, which presumably helped suit their agenda. That's when I hit the red "x" in the upper right hand corner and looked elsewhere.
-
Which once again leaves the question unanswered - if OCAC is false, then at what point prior to going to confession, did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
I already talked about this. It would be at the part of the Traditional absolution where the priest lifts all canonical penalties, just before absolving him of his sins. That's the entire point of that part of the Traditional Rite.
-
Which once again leaves the question unanswered - if OCAC is false, then at what point prior to going to confession, did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
I already talked about this. It would be at the part of the Traditional absolution where the priest lifts all canonical penalties, just before absolving him of his sins. That's the entire point of that part of the Traditional Rite.
Yes, it is a part of the traditional rite, but if that were so, then a non-Catholic walked into the confessional.
-
Behold the Traditional form of absolution:
May Almighty God have mercy on thee, forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to everlasting life. Amen.
May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee pardon, absolution and remission of thy sins.
May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I by His authority do absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, or interdict (or suspension) as far as I am able and thou art needful.
I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whatever good thou shalt have done or evil endured, be for thee unto the remission of thy sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.
-
Which once again leaves the question unanswered - if OCAC is false, then at what point prior to going to confession, did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
I already talked about this. It would be at the part of the Traditional absolution where the priest lifts all canonical penalties, just before absolving him of his sins. That's the entire point of that part of the Traditional Rite.
Yes, it is a part of the traditional rite, but if that were so, then a non-Catholic walked into the confessional.
And...?
Anyone can walk into a Confessional.
Sacrament takes effect at the absolution of sins. That's WHY the canonical penalties are lifted just before absolution because those penalties could otherwise obstruct the absolution. This obviously would ordinarily not be effective against reserved penalties or sins ... except in danger of death, for the Church has always made concession like that in danger of death.
Those sins confessed are simply the matter for the Sacrament. Similarly, the host is placed on the paten before the Consecration but it does not become the Blessed Sacrament until the form is applied to it at the Consecration.
I'm sorry, but this is the weakest argument for OCAC that I have ever seen.
-
Behold the Traditional form of absolution:
May Almighty God have mercy on thee, forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to everlasting life. Amen.
May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee pardon, absolution and remission of thy sins.
You are saying that these words of absolution are being said to a non-Catholic?
May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I by His authority do absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, or interdict (or suspension) as far as I am able and thou art needful.
I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whatever good thou shalt have done or evil endured, be for thee unto the remission of thy sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.
But after these words are pronounced, or *as* these words are pronounced, you are saying the person goes from a dying non-Catholic to a dying Catholic in sanctifying grace.
I disagree.
-
Which once again leaves the question unanswered - if OCAC is false, then at what point prior to going to confession, did the non-Catholic become Catholic?
I already talked about this. It would be at the part of the Traditional absolution where the priest lifts all canonical penalties, just before absolving him of his sins. That's the entire point of that part of the Traditional Rite.
Yes, it is a part of the traditional rite, but if that were so, then a non-Catholic walked into the confessional.
And...?
Anyone can walk into a Confessional.
Anyone can walk in, but only Catholics can be absolved in the sacrament of penance - otherwise, please post your source stating the sacrament is open to non-Catholics.
Sacrament takes effect at the absolution of sins. That's WHY the canonical penalties are lifted just before absolution because those penalties could otherwise obstruct the absolution. This obviously would ordinarily not be effective against reserved penalties or sins ... except in danger of death, for the Church has always made concession like that in danger of death.
Those sins confessed are simply the matter for the Sacrament. Similarly, the host is placed on the paten before the Consecration but it does not become the Blessed Sacrament until the form is applied to it at the Consecration.
I'm sorry, but this is the weakest argument for OCAC that I have ever seen.
It is not a weak argument unless you believe the sacrament of penance - and heck, the Holy Eucharist and confirmation for that matter, is open to non-Catholics.
-
He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.
Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?
Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.
Let me ask another way - can you quote an Early Church Father, Saint or theologian before 1500 who taught that someone without explicit faith in Jesus Christ can be saved? Of course I exclude Origen's and Clement of Alexandria's universalist speculations, as we agree these were heretical.
Also, you claimed hat "there is zero evidence that the idea of implicit faith was condemned", when I gave you a quote from St. Augustine where he explicitly rejects the concept of salvation of invincibly ignorant through implicit faith, and other quotes from the Early Church Fathers emphasizing the necessity of explicit faith for salvation.
-
bump :laugh1:
-
bump :laugh1:
I do not have much of a devotion to Saint John Bosco and never have. But I do own a mug with his picture on it that my mother ordered for me from the Novus Ordo Salesians. So maybe he prays for me when I drink coffee from my Saint John Bosco mug.
-
Great website for those struggling with the Feeneyism issue.
This still seems to be an issue for some in here.
-
Great website, thanks for reminding all of us. Great review of Church teaching.
http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
-
Great website, thanks for reminding all of us. Great review of Church teaching.
http://www.baptismofdesire.com/
Thank you!
-
Thank you!
One of the worst websites online. Destroying the Sacrament of Baptism is evil.
-
One of the worst websites online. Destroying the Sacrament of Baptism is evil.
Or not.
-
Just a shameless bump from LoT of a mindless spam site (put up by his buddy / alter-ego bosco) ... since he's been completely refuted and confounded on the actual theological subjects under discussion on other threads. His bump is just a distraction from that.
-
Just a shameless bump from LoT of a mindless spam site (put up by his buddy / alter-ego bosco) ... since he's been completely refuted and confounded on the actual theological subjects under discussion on other threads. His bump is just a distraction from that.
Or not.
-
Just a shameless bump from LoT of a mindless spam site (put up by his buddy / alter-ego bosco) ... since he's been completely refuted and confounded on the actual theological subjects under discussion on other threads. His bump is just a distraction from that.
Do you keep a straight face when you state truths about you and apply them to me?
-
Or not.
So, destroying the Sacrament of Baptism is not evil? Naturally, this is the opinion of all bod'ers and proves the mindset of those who have no respect for the sacraments.
-
So, destroying the Sacrament of Baptism is not evil? Naturally, this is the opinion of all bod'ers and proves the mindset of those who have no respect for the sacraments.
Since when did theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes who teach BOD "destroy the Sacrament"? Why do you invent accusations in order to undermine your opponent. Explain to me how the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes who speak to the contrary who teach BOD "destroy" the sacrament? Or do you not care about the truth and instead you will invent another trumped up charge?
-
Since when did theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes who teach BOD "destroy the Sacrament"? Why do you invent accusations in order to undermine your opponent. Explain to me how the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes who speak to the contrary who teach BOD "destroy" the sacrament? Or do you not care about the truth and instead you will invent another trumped up charge?
You destroy the Sacrament when you say Baptism isn't necessary. And that's what you teach: Bod=The Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary.
-
You destroy the Sacrament when you say Baptism isn't necessary. And that's what you teach: Bod=The Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary.
Then I'm stuck with the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes and you are stuck with Feeney and the Dimonds.
-
Then I'm stuck with the theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes and you are stuck with Feeney and the Dimonds.
You wish you had Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes. You have nothing but supposition, if, maybe, possibly, hopefully, perhaps...all with the express desire to destroy the firm doctrine that Baptism, remission of sin and Church membership, are necessary for salvation. Your false doctrine that Baptism, the Church, and remission of sin are not necessary is condemned.
-
You wish you had Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes. You have nothing but supposition, if, maybe, possibly, hopefully, perhaps...all with the express desire to destroy the firm doctrine that Baptism, remission of sin and Church membership, are necessary for salvation. Your false doctrine that Baptism, the Church, and remission of sin are not necessary is condemned.
Back to the quotes since it is impossible to get into a rational discussion with a public feeneyite.
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.”
-
Or not.
Oh, for sure.
-
Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated only for disobedience, not for going against the faith.
Incorrect. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (here (http://baptismofdesire.com/feeney.html)) clearly states, "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...". The circuмstances surrounding the excommunication were printed in an article in "The Catholic Advance" on February 27, 1953, which can be seen here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/Feeney-article-1953.jpg). Pope Pius XII made three separate requests for Father Feeney to come to Rome. Clearly this meeting was to be about Father Feeney's denial of a Catholic doctrine, but when he did not show for the hearing, this was the final straw.
-
Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated only for disobedience, not for going against the faith.
Incorrect. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (here (http://baptismofdesire.com/feeney.html)) clearly states, "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...". The circuмstances surrounding the excommunication were printed in an article in "The Catholic Advance" on February 27, 1953, which can be seen here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/Feeney-article-1953.jpg). Pope Pius XII made three separate requests for Father Feeney to come to Rome. Clearly this meeting was to be about Father Feeney's denial of a Catholic doctrine, but when he did not show for the hearing, this was the final straw.
The church teaches Baptism is necessary for salvation. Period.
-
The Magisterium of the Church
In order to understand Baptism of Desire and Blood, Catholics must first understand what the Magisterium of the Church is, which is defined as "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion". In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them. The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;
1. Solemn Magisterium: Defined as Church teaching “which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecuмenical councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra." (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium would be decisions of any General Councils of the Church, or certain papal encyclicals, such as that defining the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Note that it is only in extraordinary circuмstances that the Catholic Church teaches in this manner, which historically has been to combat heresy. For this reason it is sometimes referred to as the “extraordinary magisterium”. For examples of the Solemn Magisterium, here is a list of all solemn teaching during the first 7 centuries of the Catholic Church:
· Council of Nicaea I (325): condemned the heresy of Arius, and defined the Divinity of the Son of God and the Nicene Creed.
· Council of Constantinople I (381): condemned the heresy of Macedonius, and defined the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, confirmed and extended the Nicene Creed.
· Council of Ephesus (431): condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that there was one person in Christ, and defended the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
· Council of Chalcedon (451): condemned the heresy of Eutyches (Monophysitism); declared Christ had two natures, human and divine.
· Council of Constantinople II (553): condemned, as savoring of Nestorianism, the so-called Three Chapters, the erroneous books of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the teaching of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa.
· Council of Constantinople III (680-681): declared against the Monothelites, who taught one will in Christ, by defining that Christ had two wills, human and divine.
Here we can clearly see that in the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see next).
-
The Magisterium of the Church
In order to understand Baptism of Desire and Blood, Catholics must first understand what the Magisterium of the Church is, which is defined as "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion". In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them. The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;
1. Solemn Magisterium: Defined as Church teaching “which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecuмenical councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra." (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)
Examples of the Solemn Magisterium would be decisions of any General Councils of the Church, or certain papal encyclicals, such as that defining the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Note that it is only in extraordinary circuмstances that the Catholic Church teaches in this manner, which historically has been to combat heresy. For this reason it is sometimes referred to as the “extraordinary magisterium”. For examples of the Solemn Magisterium, here is a list of all solemn teaching during the first 7 centuries of the Catholic Church:Here we can clearly see that in the first 7 centuries of the Church, the Solemn Magisterium was not used often, and very little was solemnly defined. So at least 7 generations of Catholics lived and died during this time with very little solemn teaching by the Church. This is because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see next).
Denial of Catholic dogma is never true.
-
The Dogma of Infallibility
It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that the Church is divinely kept from the possibility of error in her definitive teaching on faith and morals.
Definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951: "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.
So these definitions coincide with the magisterium definitions above.
In other words, teaching from the Ordinary Magisterium continually occurs throughout the Church century after century, and the decisions of Popes and Councils (Solemn Magisterium) confine what is taught through the ordinary teaching. Both solemn and ordinary teaching of the Church are considered infallible by this definition. The infallibility of both Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium was solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council (1870) when it stated the following:
"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
In other words, both forms of the Magisterium of the Church (Solemn or Ordinary) are infallible and must be believed, according to this General Council. So if a teaching in the Church is universal, and allowed to propagate without condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium, it is considered infallible by the First Vatican Council. Next we provide examples of such teaching from both solemn and ordinary teaching of the Church on the subject of the threefold Baptism.
-
Or............Salvationoutsideofthechurch.com
-
What is this thread I have stumbled into and why does it go from 2013 to 2017 and is 48 pages? I don't want to read all of this.
-
What is this thread I have stumbled into and why does it go from 2013 to 2017 and is 48 pages? I don't want to read all of this.
I think someone dug it up, because, at 48 pages, its the shortest Feeneyite thread of all time.
-
What is this thread I have stumbled into and why does it go from 2013 to 2017 and is 48 pages? I don't want to read all of this.
You should have let it die the death that it deserved and not bumped it :laugh1: Mostly likely just the OP promoting his own website. But the site itself is now dead, so perhaps the refutations of it here helped kill it and give it the death that it deserved also.
-
What is this thread I have stumbled into and why does it go from 2013 to 2017 and is 48 pages? I don't want to read all of this.
Just read Croixalist's post on this topic. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Show Posts - Croixalist (cathinfo.com)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=4364)Go to pages 62 - 65 (I think that's the complete range) of his posts. Start with page 65 (and go back towards 62). There you will read his posts in the thread, and hear reason and sound understanding on the issue.
-
Just read Croixalist's post on this topic. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Show Posts - Croixalist (cathinfo.com)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=4364)Go to pages 62 - 65 (I think that's the complete range) of his posts. Start with page 65 (and go back towards 62). There you will read his posts in the thread, and hear reason and sound understanding on the issue.
I'll make it even easier. Here's page 65:
Show Posts - Croixalist (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4364;area=showposts;start=960)
-
I'll make it even easier. Here's page 65:
Show Posts - Croixalist (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4364;area=showposts;start=960)
So it's just a bod thread for 48 pages....
-
I am a "Feeneyite" and a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire. I posted on this before but the above website is, basically, "pounding on open doors":
1) Baptism of Desire confers sanctifying grace. We all agree on that and Father Feeney taught it. Baptism of Desire (or, "desire of Baptism") is a grace given by the One and Triune God, and everyone agrees that it will place an individual in a state of justification before God via the merits of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.
2) The character of Baptism confers grace. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle Doctor and theologian, taught this explicitly, but it seldom gets mentioned:
Saint Thomas is teaching that a catechumen who dies with only "Baptism of Desire" in the absence of martyrdom and without sacramental Baptism would still have to suffer the temporal punishments in Purgatory for his/her sins.
So, in Catholic theology, "justification" is not an either/or thing. There are degrees of reward in Heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in Hell, so in that sense, one can become "more and more" justified before the Triune God over time.
3) Catholic martyrs go straight to Heaven. This is a pitiful "straw man" that some like to "use" against we "Feeneyites." The only question is, "Has the Sovereign God allowed such martyrs to enter into Paradise lacking the indelible seal of Baptism?" No one at either of the two Saint Benedict Centers believes that a true martyr for Christ would go to Hell for want of sacramental Baptism, unless one wishes to apply the label "Feeneyite" to those individuals who espouse views which Father Feeney himself would have anathematized. This brings me to my next point...
4) Proving negatives. While there is universal agreement among traditional Catholics on Points #1, #2 and #3, here is where folks start to diverge. In particular, "How could you, I, or anyone else ever 'prove,' 'know,' etc., that someone, anyone, was never sacramentally baptized, if only in that person's infancy?" In other words, to embrace Baptism of Desire as some "standalone" de fide dogma of the Catholic Faith is to try and "prove negatives," cosmic ones, in fact. Our God is a big God, omnipotent, which means that He can bring the character of sacramental Baptism (and, hence, its graces) to anyone whom He wishes.
5) Angels can baptize. Saint Thomas taught this possibility explicitly but it rarely gets mentioned:
"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels. But if demons, who are 'lying spirits,' were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid." (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.64, a.7)
"Since the order of Divine Providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (q. 109, a. 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.111, a.1)
6) Angels are outside of "time and space". Per the Angelic Doctor, they can do amazing things:
So, the question if there are persons in Heaven who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism is still "fair game," an open theological question, which is why there are "Feeneyites" who, to this very day, are in full communion with Rome.
And this is why we are not feeneyites. What an absurdity to say that one can be damned without the stain of mortal or original sin! Rather BoB is fictitious, it simply means that you will be preserved until baptism,whereas BoD is like a say, Second baptism, not for the unbaptised. This is why the St Benedict centre and fr feeney were in communion with Montini, they did not teach teh truth about “BoB”, think the false arguments of flat earth society like “the earth is rising at 9.8 m/s”, it is that sort of controlled opposition feeling I get from the st Benedict centre “BoB justifies but doesn’t glorify” WHAT?
-
Explain what is meant by "full communion."
They have approved diocesan Masses and receive the Sacraments from a Catholic bishop who is in good standing with Rome:
http://www.saintbenedict.com/
So they are members of the Vatican II false sect. Got it.
-
Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737).
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
737 means they will be preserved until baptism in re
1239 means baptised by angels
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved".
-
The late Orestes Brownson, Catholic Convert tells of his own boyhood, how when he was ten years old living in the woods of Vermont, he was met by an elderly woman who told him, "Son, seek out that Church which can trace itself all the way back to the Apostles. Do not follow the recent churches, those founded by Calvin, by Zwingli, etc., but find that Church which can trace itself to the beginning." Brownson was a young unbaptized boy, yet he formed some desire to follow after the woman's words. He was eventually received into the Catholic Church in 1844 at the age of 41,and was baptized.
A syllogism which comes to mind:
Trent (Major): The Sacraments are necessary for salvation
minor: Baptism of Desire is a not a sacrament
Ergo: Baptism of Desire does not avail salvation
-
A syllogism which comes to mind:
Trent (Major): The Sacraments are necessary for salvation
minor: Baptism of Desire is a not a sacrament
Ergo: Baptism of Desire does not avail salvation
Well, I think this should be flipped just a bit, but in any case, the comeback from BoDers is that the Sacrament of Baptism remains necessary in BoD since it's the Sacrament, somehow working through the desire, and applying itself to the souls of those who desire it, that effects the salvation. In other words, you can't have Baptism of Desire if there's no Baptism to Desire.
Yet, the chief refutation of this argument to retain the necessity of Sacrament is that the Council of Florence taught that the Sacraments cannot avail unto salvation for those who had not been joined into unity with the Church's Body, i.e. to non-members of the Church.
-
The late Orestes Brownson, Catholic Convert tells of his own boyhood, how when he was ten years old living in the woods of Vermont, he was met by an elderly woman who told him, "Son, seek out that Church which can trace itself all the way back to the Apostles. Do not follow the recent churches, those founded by Calvin, by Zwingli, etc., but find that Church which can trace itself to the beginning." Brownson was a young unbaptized boy, yet he formed some desire to follow after the woman's words. He was eventually received into the Catholic Church in 1844 at the age of 41,and was baptized.
A syllogism which comes to mind:
Trent (Major): The Sacraments are necessary for salvation
minor: Baptism of Desire is a not a sacrament
Ergo: Baptism of Desire does not avail salvation
OA,
You adopted Brownson's name for your CI identification. You cite him often with reference to your Feeneyite position. Yet I know he would have rejected your Feeneyite view. I know that, because he said:
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
And you know this too, because I've quoted it to you at least once, and I think more than that.
Your cognitive dissonance is amazing.
DR
-
You adopted Brownson's name for your CI identification. You cite him often with reference to your Feeneyite position. Yet I know he would have rejected your Feeneyite view. I know that, because he said:
Have you ever read Fr Feeney's books?
Question: 'what happens to a catechumen who dies without baptism? Do they go to heaven or hell?"
Fr Feeney's answer: "I don't know. And neither do you."
Fr Feeney was "excommunicated" because he pushed back on the false narrative that it's "highly probable" that BOD saves. His view was literally neutral. And people lost their minds. Shows the liberalism back in the 40s (i.e. "the good 'ol days prior to V2" :facepalm:)
So, you're wrong. Fr Feeney did not reject Brownson's view directly. And Brownson would've admitted that the "soul of the Church" is a theological opinion, not a doctrine.
-
So, you're wrong.
Pax,
You quoted my post above (#718). Now, where exactly am I wrong in that post?
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Pax,
You quoted my post above (#718). Now, where exactly am I wrong in that post?
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
You said Feeney would not agree with Brownson. Not true. Feeney would neither agree/disagree with Brownson’s view of the “soul” of the Church. Fr Feeney’s view was “I don’t know”.
Your assertion is based on an incomplete knowledge of Fr Feeney. He was combating the pre-V2-universal-salvation error which stated that BOD could “definitely save” non Catholics. Fr Feeney simply argued “No, it’s not definite. There’s no dogma. It’s unknown.”
-
You said Feeney would not agree with Brownson. Not true. Feeney would neither agree/disagree with Brownson’s view of the “soul” of the Church. Fr Feeney’s view was “I don’t know”.
Your assertion is based on an incomplete knowledge of Fr Feeney. He was combating the pre-V2-universal-salvation error which stated that BOD could “definitely save” non Catholics. Fr Feeney simply argued “No, it’s not definite. There’s no dogma. It’s unknown.”
You seriously think non Catholics can be saved with invisible ignorance as a possibility??????
-
Off topic. Read before you post.
-
You seriously think non Catholics can be saved with invisible ignorance as a possibility??????
As St. Thomas would say ... aaah, distinguo ...
I believe that invincible ignorance combined with lack of actual sin could prevent eternal punishment, but that it's not the same thing as "salvation", which entails the Beatific Vision, and only the baptized can receive that.
Now, very little has been made since the BoD era regarding the character of the Sacrament of Baptism, where it's been reduced to some non-repeatability marker, perhaps a badge of honor that some in heaven have and others don't. That's nonsense. If someone wanted to say that an angel would come to baptize people who are to be saved, or something along those lines, I'd find that much less satisfactory.
So we know that by our NATURE we are incapable of the Beatific Vision, of seeing God as He is. We have natural faculties, but lack the supernatural ones by nature. So this character of Baptism is what endows us with the supernatural faculty or capability to see God. It's also marks us, similar to giving us the DNA of Christ's Body, where we are recognized as God's sons ... albeit by adoption ... and therefore members of the family of the Holy Trinity, in the Kingdom. God sees His Son in those who have this character ... of His Son in them. Church Fathers referred to this seal as the illumination or enlightenment.
At the same time, those who are invincibly ignorant and practice natural virute, etc. ... I believe they can attain to a certain level of happiness, or at least certain degress of non-suffering in eternity. Are they saved? No. Are they in Hell? Well, depends on how you define Hell. I think that there are almost infinite "levels" of happiness/punishment depending on your practice of natural virtue or vice, but election to being elevated to that supernatural state, which is owed to no one, can only be possible through the Sacrament and the character it bestows.
I believe that's what Father Feeney was hinting at when he answered that he did not know what happened to those who had BoD but who died without the Sacrament.
Lest people think this is heretical, the precise nature of eternity and the afterlife are one subject about which very little has been formally revealed. This notion of Limbo (along the lines I just articulated for adults, but for infants) was not Revealed, and yet the Church actualy condemned those who condemned it "as a Pelagian fable". It's pure speculation, but it's also not contradicted or ruled out by what has been revealed by God. There's no guarantee whatsoever that God has revealed everything there is to know about all matters.
-
You said Feeney would not agree with Brownson. Not true. Feeney would neither agree/disagree with Brownson’s view of the “soul” of the Church. Fr Feeney’s view was “I don’t know”.
Your assertion is based on an incomplete knowledge of Fr Feeney. He was combating the pre-V2-universal-salvation error which stated that BOD could “definitely save” non Catholics. Fr Feeney simply argued “No, it’s not definite. There’s no dogma. It’s unknown.”
:facepalm:
You're seriously going to tell me you read my post and that the issue was about "the soul of the Church"? Good grief. The issue is about whether there can be salvation without the receipt of the sacrament of baptism, as OA asserted in his post #716 (which I responded to): "Baptism of Desire does not avail salvation."
As to that issue, I quoted Brownson and highlighted the most relevant part, which addressed the issue:
All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours . . .
Father Feeney said no one could be saved without the sacrament. Read again what Browson said. He would not agree with Feeney; Feeney would not agree with him.
And you call out someone else for "off topic" comments, and counsel them to "read the post?
You never cease to amaze me, Pax.
-
Father Feeney said no one could be saved without the sacrament.
For the 3rd time, this is NOT the complete argument of Fr Feeney. :facepalm:
-
For the 3rd time, this is NOT the complete argument of Fr Feeney. :facepalm:
Pathetic.
I wasn't addressing the "complete argument" of Fr. Feeney. I was addressing the position of Brownson contra Feeney on the issue of whether there could be salvation without receipt of the sacrament of baptism in re.
You're like a dog with his bone, even though the bone is rancid.
In preparation for your response: yes, Pax, I know you don't have a tail and aren't covered in fur.
-
I’ll make this simple because your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Brownson says it’s possible for a catechumen (not a pagan) to be saved by BOD. Fr Feeney would say “this isn’t a doctrine but it’s possible.”
There is no disagreement between the two people.
-
I’ll make this simple because your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Brownson says it’s possible for a catechumen (not a pagan) to be saved by BOD. Fr Feeney would say “this isn’t a doctrine but it’s possible.”
There is no disagreement between the two people.
Father Feeney famously said one could be justified by BoD but not saved.
Brownson believed a catechumen could be saved by BoD. Again:
All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours . . .
There. I enlarged the font (rarely appropriate, but it is here, alas) and underlined.
Father Feeney did not agree.
This is worse than normal, Pax. I hope you are well.
DR
-
Father Feeney famously said one could be justified by BoD but not saved.
Yes, he said this. But he EXPANDED this statement because it’s incomplete. As I keep repeating, you have a lack of understanding of what Fr Feeneys arguments (he had numerous) were. You just keep posting ONE of his points.
You can stop posting what Brownson said. The issue is with your misunderstanding of Fr Feeney.
-
Yes, he said this. But he EXPANDED this statement because it’s incomplete. As I keep repeating, you have a lack of understanding of what Fr Feeneys arguments (he had numerous) were. You just keep posting ONE of his points.
You can stop posting what Brownson said. The issue is with your misunderstanding of Fr Feeney.
Prove it, if you can. Just don’t make assertions. Show us Father Feeney’s “expansion.”
-
Fr. Feeney said a catechumen who was justified by BoD would receive the sacrament if they were to be saved. In other words, they would not be saved without receipt of the sacrament. Browning says a catechumen could be saved without the receipt of the sacrament.
THEY DISAGREE.
Whats’s the matter with you?
-
Fr. Feeney said a catechumen who was justified by BoD would receive the sacrament if they were to be saved. In other words, they would not be saved without receipt of the sacrament. Browning says a catechumen could be saved without the receipt of the sacrament.
THEY DISAGREE.
Whats’s the matter with you?
First of all, Fr Feeney wrote an entire book on the topic, which i've read. And he touched on the subject in other books and articles, which I've read. I know what he said (and he said many things). You're not distinguishing between his arguments.
Brownson said the same thing that St Thomas, St Augustine (before he changed his mind), St Bellarmine all have said -- which is OPINION or theological speculation -- that a catechumen could by saved by BOD. Nothing groundbreaking. They all admitted BOD was a theory. This is key. Brownson lived in the 1800s.
By the time Fr Feeney was around (1930s-1950s) the discussion on BOD had changed from a theory to a doctrine. Many modernist bishops/cardinals in America were preaching that BOD could save, and...(key point)...that this was church doctrine.
Fr Feeney spoke out against Cushing and other modernists in the Boston area that, no, BOD was not a doctrine. This was Fr Feeney's main point.
As Fr admitted in his book (which I have already posted), "What happens to a catechumen who dies without baptism?" Answer: "I don't know, and neither do you." In other words, the Church has not spoken on the matter. It's all opinion.
And in Fr Feeney's opinion, God would provide the catechumen with baptism and BOD wasn't necessary.
But....did Fr Feeney disagree with others who still held BOD? No. As long as BOD remained in the realm of opinion. Because Fr never said that BOD was heresy. Just that it wasn't yet defined.
Did Fr Feeney PERSONALLY disagree with Browson? Yes.
Did Fr Feeney DOCTRINALLY disagree with Brownson? No, because BOD isn't a doctrine and Browson *could* be right (we'll know when the Church decides).
-
First of all, Fr Feeney wrote an entire book on the topic, which i've read. And he touched on the subject in other books and articles, which I've read. I know what he said (and he said many things). You're not distinguishing between his arguments.
Brownson said the same thing that St Thomas, St Augustine (before he changed his mind), St Bellarmine all have said -- which is OPINION or theological speculation -- that a catechumen could by saved by BOD. Nothing groundbreaking. They all admitted BOD was a theory. This is key. Brownson lived in the 1800s.
By the time Fr Feeney was around (1930s-1950s) the discussion on BOD had changed from a theory to a doctrine. Many modernist bishops/cardinals in America were preaching that BOD could save, and...(key point)...that this was church doctrine.
Fr Feeney spoke out against Cushing and other modernists in the Boston area that, no, BOD was not a doctrine. This was Fr Feeney's main point.
As Fr admitted in his book (which I have already posted), "What happens to a catechumen who dies without baptism?" Answer: "I don't know, and neither do you." In other words, the Church has not spoken on the matter. It's all opinion.
And in Fr Feeney's opinion, God would provide the catechumen with baptism and BOD wasn't necessary.
But....did Fr Feeney disagree with others who still held BOD? No. As long as BOD remained in the realm of opinion. Because Fr never said that BOD was heresy. Just that it wasn't yet defined.
Did Fr Feeney PERSONALLY disagree with Browson? Yes.
Did Fr Feeney DOCTRINALLY disagree with Brownson? No, because BOD isn't a doctrine and Browson *could* be right (we'll know when the Church decides).
What a waste of space! Anything but direct dealing with the precise issue so you can hear yourself babble.
Unlike you, when I make an assertion, I can back it up. Here, from Bread of Life:
"It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved."
Now go ahead and babble on. I've never put someone on block or avoid, until now. You're insufferable.
By, Pax.
DR
-
You're quoting Feeney's opinion. But he didn't consider his opinion as infallible. Learn to distinguish.
-
Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church to write about theological matters, and wrote his books without the necessary Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.
He was not a theologian, but just a simple Jesuit -- for a while, until he was expelled from the order.
He is not an authority on anything. It just blows my mind that people quote him incessantly as if he were the prophet Isaias instead of a disgraced and excommunicated priest. Even the words that people quibble over were written without the Church's approval and in violation of canon law. There should be no need to refute or even address anything of such a nature.
The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.
The whole discussion of his ideas is a complete non-issue for Catholics who understand how the Church works.
-
You're quoting Feeney's opinion. But he didn't consider his opinion as infallible. Learn to distinguish.
I simply said they disagreed. Even if it were opinions, it was disagreement. As I said.
They disagreed as to their opinions.
Lord help me!!!!!
How do you hide someone's post from view again? Can someone help there?
-
Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church to write about theological matters, and wrote his books without the necessary Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.
He was not a theologian, but just a simple Jesuit -- for a while, until he was expelled from the order.
He is not an authority on anything. It just blows my mind that people quote him incessantly as if he were the prophet Isaias instead of a disgraced and excommunicated priest. Even the words that people quibble over were written without the Church's approval and in violation of canon law. There should be no need to refute or even address anything of such a nature.
The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.
The whole discussion of his ideas is a complete non-issue for Catholics who understand how the Church works.
Who was going to give him permission to write on Exclusive Salvation, Yeti? Notorious heretic Archbishop Cushing? His Jesuit superiors who denied Exclusive Salvation?
Fr. Michael Muller was silenced by his superiors in the 19th century for defending EENS while heretic priests were allowed to attack him and his works while denying EENS. And Fr. Muller even held "BOD".
Who is going to defend the most important dogma of the Church if the vast majority of the hierarchy deny it?
-
I simply said they disagreed. Even if it were opinions, it was disagreement. As I said.
They disagreed as to their opinions.
Lord help me!!!!!
How do you hide someone's post from view again? Can someone help there?
No, you went above and beyond just saying it was a disagreement. You called the "OABrownson" user a hypocrite. Which means you were elevating a difference of opinion, to a difference of fact.
You're the one who escalated the situation. I explained that you're wrong and now you're flipping out.
-
The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.
:laugh1: :facepalm: The entire Traditional movement is based on "excommunicated" clerics who do things "without approval" from new-rome.
Your error is in not admitting that modernists rats who showed their true colors at V2 in 1962 didn't exist prior to 1962. :laugh1: They most certainly did. And they most certainly were PREPARING for V2 LONG BEFORE it happened, by "shutting up" clerics like Feeney, ABL and Mueller, who the Modernists knew wouldn't go along with V2.
-
Who was going to give him permission to write on Exclusive Salvation, Yeti? Notorious heretic Archbishop Cushing? His Jesuit superiors who denied Exclusive Salvation?
Fr. Michael Muller was silenced by his superiors in the 19th century for defending EENS while heretic priests were allowed to attack him and his works while denying EENS. And Fr. Muller even held "BOD".
.
Well, if the Church isn't going to give Feeney permission to write about something, then that means it's erroneous. This is pretty simple.
"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the infidel." -- Our Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 18:17.
I've never heard of Fr. Mueller being silenced. He certainly wrote many, many books. Do you have a reference for that?
Who is going to defend the most important dogma of the Church if the vast majority of the hierarchy deny it?
The Church teachers through her hierarchy. If the hierarchy denies something, then it is not a dogma of the Church.
-
Well, if the Church isn't going to give Feeney permission to write about something, then that means it's erroneous. This is pretty simple.
If we lived in orthodox times, you'd be correct. But of course, we don't. You can't give most of these post-WW2 clerics the benefit of the doubt....they approved V2. :laugh1:
-
:laugh1: :facepalm: The entire Traditional movement is based on "excommunicated" clerics who do things "without approval" from new-rome.
.
You use the term "new-rome" in your first sentence. That's the difference. Traditional priests are excommunicated by a false church.
But Feeney was excommunicated by Pius XII, whom no one claims was a false pope, not even Feeney himself.
So this argument is apples and oranges.
Your error is in not admitting that modernists rats who showed their true colors at V2 in 1962 didn't exist prior to 1962. :laugh1: They most certainly did. And they most certainly were PREPARING for V2 LONG BEFORE it happened, by "shutting up" clerics like Feeney, ABL and Mueller, who the Modernists knew wouldn't go along with V2.
None of this either addresses or refutes what I said. Catholics cannot write anything on theology without the approval of the Church; this is right in canon law. This law exists to guarantee the accuracy of the teaching. Feeney did not have this approval when he wrote on baptism. Therefore the Church has offered no guarantee to the correctness of his teaching; on the contrary, that teaching was given in contravention of Church law.
-
If we lived in orthodox times, you'd be correct. But of course, we don't. You can't give most of these post-WW2 clerics the benefit of the doubt....they approved V2. :laugh1:
.
Feeney lived in orthodox times. He lived in the 1940s. You can't make an argument based on the crisis in the Church today and apply it to those times, before the crisis existed.
-
.
Feeney lived in orthodox times. He lived in the 1940s. You can't make an argument based on the crisis in the Church today and apply it to those times, before the crisis existed.
:laugh1: 1940s to 1963...that's 20 years or less. Where do you think the Modernists were prior to 1963? They weren't living in caves. They were running dioceses, like the modernist Cushing was. Cushing wasn't a Cardinal, but he was supporting the V2 movement before V2 happened.
You obviously don't know of the modernist rot of the 'American ecclesiastical Review' books/theological committee in America in the 30s-60s either.
Are you really arguing that V2 just happened overnight, with no preparation? There was no brainwashing/PR which happened in the decades before? This view makes no sense.
-
:laugh1: 1940s to 1963...that's 20 years or less. Where do you think the Modernists were prior to 1963? They weren't living in caves. They were running dioceses, like the modernist Cushing was. Cushing wasn't a Cardinal, but he was supporting the V2 movement before V2 happened.
You obviously don't know of the modernist rot of the 'American ecclesiastical Review' books/theological committee in America in the 30s-60s either.
Are you really arguing that V2 just happened overnight, with no preparation? There was no brainwashing/PR which happened in the decades before? This view makes no sense.
.
You seem to consider the Church to be a human institution, and indeed one that lacks authority.
This is seriously erroneous. The Church is protected from teaching error in its universal teaching. It also requires anyone who writes on theological matters to submit their writings for approval to the authority of the Church, which enjoys divine protection from error, and to which we as Catholics are required to submit.
You are effectively claiming that someone can claim their bishop is a heretic and then consider himself dispensed from the laws of the Church. This is completely false.
In any case, if what Feeney taught were Catholic teaching, then he wouldn't have needed to write anything at all except to say, "Read Fr. So-and-so, a theologian who teaches that baptism of desire is heretical, or that someone can't be saved with baptism of desire." But he didn't. The reason is that, quite simply, there wasn't any theologian that the Church ever approved, at any point in her history even prior to the modernist crisis, who ever said such a thing. That's why Feeney had to write his own propaganda and claim it was the teaching of the Church.
-
.
Well, if the Church isn't going to give Feeney permission to write about something, then that means it's erroneous. This is pretty simple.
I've never heard of Fr. Mueller being silenced. He certainly wrote many, many books. Do you have a reference for that?
The Church teachers through her hierarchy. If the hierarchy denies something, then it is not a dogma of the Church.
https://catholicism.org/father-mueller.html
You can contact them for a direct citation if this isn't good enough, I've been meaning to myself. I assume they have had access to the letters in question
And you do understand that the "Boston Heresy Case" had nothing whatsoever to do with BOD, right? It was about EENS and nothing more, which the "Catholic" teachers and teacher priests were explicitly denying
-
.
You seem to consider the Church to be a human institution, and indeed one that lacks authority.
This is seriously erroneous. The Church is protected from teaching error in its universal teaching. It also requires anyone who writes on theological matters to submit their writings for approval to the authority of the Church, which enjoys divine protection from error, and to which we as Catholics are required to submit.
You are effectively claiming that someone can claim their bishop is a heretic and then consider himself dispensed from the laws of the Church. This is completely false.
In any case, if what Feeney taught were Catholic teaching, then he wouldn't have needed to write anything at all except to say, "Read Fr. So-and-so, a theologian who teaches that baptism of desire is heretical, or that someone can't be saved with baptism of desire." But he didn't. The reason is that, quite simply, there wasn't any theologian that the Church ever approved, at any point in her history even prior to the modernist crisis, who ever said such a thing. That's why Feeney had to write his own propaganda and claim it was the teaching of the Church.
Ironic. Your claim that Fr Feeney wrote propaganda, is infact anti-Catholic propaganda, and most trads have fallen for it.
-
You seem to consider the Church to be a human institution, and indeed one that lacks authority.
This is seriously erroneous. The Church is protected from teaching error in its universal teaching. It also requires anyone who writes on theological matters to submit their writings for approval to the authority of the Church, which enjoys divine protection from error, and to which we as Catholics are required to submit.
:facepalm: Dude, your utopian view that an orthodox/traditional church is 100% free from error is not possible. The ONLY person who is free from error is the Pope. And that's not 100% of the time, but only certain times.
If you think that the pope is spending his time reading/approving
a. every docuмent, sermon, book, pamphlet, booklet, flyer, etc
b. from every country
c. from every state/region
d. from every diocese
e. from every cleric, monk, priest, bishop, etc
This is ludicrous. It simply doesn't happen.
What happens is that a priest passes on his book to HIS LOCAL BISHOP. And the Bishop approves/disapproves of it. And...
a. This approval is a negative approval,
b. i.e. imprimatur = nothing is contrary to the faith
c. An imprimatur doesn't mean it's 100% accurate, nor does it mean that the priest's opinion is accepted by the Church.
d. Especially in regards to theological speculation...since the Church hasn't defined the answer, then the entire book is theory.
Just like AT THE TIME, St Thomas' view on the immaculate conception was allowed (because the doctrine hadn't been defined). You can't retroactively say that St Thomas' book "contained error" because AT THE TIME, his views were allowed as theory.
-
I myself hold the See to be vacant but maintain that both sides err regarding the scope of infallibility.
Unfortunately, in combatting the errors of R&R, the SVs have grossly exaggerated the inerrancy of papal teaching, and even absurdly extend it to the consensus of theologians (something that I call Cekadism, and which Msgr. Fenton rejects as erroneous).
For all that SVs tout pre V2 theologians, I defy them to find a single one who extends infallibility to the ridiculous extent that they do.
On the other side, while papal Magisterium is not absolutely inerrant, if it can get so corrupted that Catholics may and even must refuse submission to and communion with the Pope, and can't say the same Mass, or recognize their saints ... they would have the Church defect. That is not possible ... as Archbishop Lefebvre agreed.
-
Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church...
Well first off, many believe that John XXIII was a valid Pope and as such his excommunication was lifted. Others believe that his excommunication came not from from Pope Pius XII, but (if I'm not mistaken) the Holy Office, which was part of the same structure they believe got turned inside out just years later at Vatican ii. Still others believe that the Church was becoming increasingly lax on the salvation dogma (culminating at Vatican ii) and such an excommunication was merely an effect of that, and as such can be treated as if it didn't happen.
In short, he went against the grain, in a big way, and so attracted a lot of attention. As you probably know, there are some Priests who will deny communion to those who hold his beliefs so it is not only his followers who care what he thought.
Also, no trad clergy can really be "authorized" by the Church until we get a Pope. Sure there is supplied jurisdiction but there is currently no hierarchy that operates on the basis of giving imprimaturs or clearing up current theological controversies. Such is the nature of the crisis.
(Sure this was tongue and cheek but so was the question)
-
+ABL was excommunicated for theological disagreements with V2. (And if new-Rome wanted to, they could easily excommunicate every single Trad cleric in the world). Ergo, using your flawed logic, why should anyone convert/follow Tradition if they aren’t approved?
-
+ABL was excommunicated for theological disagreements with V2. (And if new-Rome wanted to, they could easily excommunicate every single Trad cleric in the world). Ergo, using your flawed logic, why should anyone convert/follow Tradition if they aren’t approved?
Because the Vatican ii anti-popes and their henchmen have no right to approve of or disprove of anything on God's behalf.
-
"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize, or latitudinize this terrible dogma, 'Out of the Church there is no salvation,' or to give a man an opportunity to persuade himself that he belongs to the soul of the Church, though an alien from the body."
Orestes Brownson, Works, vol. 20, p.414
And some of you try and distort Brownson's writings to support your own deranged, unphilosophical, uncatholic, imaginary ideas about Catholic theology.
-
51 pages of one side never convincing the other. What percentage of trads on this forum will have to deal with this practically in their lives? I'd bet my last dollar that would be less than 0.1%. When you convert a pagan and God forbid he/she perishes before being baptised, then start a thread to discuss the practical implications of such situation. Until then worry about so many trads getting invalid sacraments without a bat of an eye about it.
-
51 pages of one side never convincing the other. What percentage of trads on this forum will have to deal with this practically in their lives? I'd bet my last dollar that would be less than 0.1%. When you convert a pagan and God forbid he/she perishes before being baptised, then start a thread to discuss the practical implications of such situation. Until then worry about so many trads getting invalid sacraments without a bat of an eye about it.
I think you've got it entirely mixed up. Objectively, anyone who dies without baptism cannot be saved. That I know because it is Church teaching. Subjectively, I cannot apply that to any individual person because I have no idea what happened between them and God before their death, at the moment of death, or at their judgement. There is no way of knowing that and I have no right to know. How can I say with certainty that any single person was not, at some point in their life, baptised? I cannot. The debate about BOD or water-only Baptism is about the necessity of the sacrament in general, and should not be applied to any one person in particular
-
51 pages of one side never convincing the other. What percentage of trads on this forum will have to deal with this practically in their lives? I'd bet my last dollar that would be less than 0.1%. When you convert a pagan and God forbid he/she perishes before being baptised, then start a thread to discuss the practical implications of such situation. Until then worry about so many trads getting invalid sacraments without a bat of an eye about it.
Not true. Plenty of people have changed their minds over the years.
-
51 pages of one side never convincing the other. What percentage of trads on this forum will have to deal with this practically in their lives? I'd bet my last dollar that would be less than 0.1%. When you convert a pagan and God forbid he/she perishes before being baptised, then start a thread to discuss the practical implications of such situation. Until then worry about so many trads getting invalid sacraments without a bat of an eye about it.
From Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life:
(https://i.imgur.com/WhbmH6M.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Cxm3KHq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GuucvEP.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3KnR8kA.png)
-
"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize, or latitudinize this terrible dogma, 'Out of the Church there is no salvation,' or to give a man an opportunity to persuade himself that he belongs to the soul of the Church, though an alien from the body."
Orestes Brownson, Works, vol. 20, p.414
And some of you try and distort Brownson's writings to support your own deranged, unphilosophical, uncatholic, imaginary ideas about Catholic theology.
OA,
Who is this directed at? If this is directed at me, man up, and address me.
Thank you.
-
"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize, or latitudinize this terrible dogma, 'Out of the Church there is no salvation,' or to give a man an opportunity to persuade himself that he belongs to the soul of the Church, though an alien from the body."
Orestes Brownson, Works, vol. 20, p.414
And some of you try and distort Brownson's writings to support your own deranged, unphilosophical, uncatholic, imaginary ideas about Catholic theology.
OA,
Who is this directed at? If this is directed at me, man up, and address me.
Thank you.
Well, OA has visited the site since I posted this. If he were lacking in time to respond, a simple 6 words could have answered this: "yes, it was directed at you," or, "no, it wasn't directed at you." Perhaps he didn't see my reply.
In any event, I'm taking the occasion to address this with the assumption it was directed at me, a reasonable assumption, since I'm the only one who quoted Brownson since this old thread was resurrected several days ago. Addressing this will also serve to highlight the errors of many Feeneyites, who, consumed with the righteousness of their crusade against modern, liberal Catholicism, and believing they have the remedy that must be taken for a cure (no salvation without receipt of the sacrament of baptism) - the only position that, in their minds, protects the dogma "No salvation outside the Church," and ascribes all opposition to their position as being, to use OA's words in his post #754 in this thread, "deranged, unphilosophical, uncatholic, imaginary ideas about Catholic theology." So perhaps you will indulge me for this response, considering that I reasonably took such offensive words as directed at me, the only one who quoted Brownson.
Let's look at the Brownson quote from OA above in juxtaposition with the quote of Brownson by me, which, again, I assume is the quote which he says I used to "distort" Brownson's view:
"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize, or latitudinize this terrible dogma, 'Out of the Church there is no salvation,' or to give a man an opportunity to persuade himself that he belongs to the soul of the Church, though an alien from the body."
Orestes Brownson, Works, vol. 20, p.414
"It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione."
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
Are these quotes in opposition to each other, as forwarding principles that would put both quotes in conflict or contradiction? If so, then Brownson contradicts himself. Does OA think he does? We don't know; he doesn't answer. Let me answer then.
The quotes do not contradict themselves. One can "liberalize or latitudinize" the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church by classifying individuals who, for example, reject Christ as the Son of God, or have no desire for entering the Catholic Church, as being within the "soul" of the Church. This is what Brownson says in the first quote. This is what some do who stretch BoD to include within the "soul of the Church" those, for example, that I mentioned. Does Brownson do that in the second quote? No. Browson simply includes catechumen who desire baptism as "belong[ing] to the visible communion of the Church," as to whom it is "more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul " Clearly, such catechumen are not "alien from the body" in Brownson's mind, and one can easily see the rational ground for the distinction.
I think any honest man with a clear head can see that Brownson doesn't contradict himself.
Now that I hope it is apparent that Brownson doesn't contradict himself, have I "distorted" Browning's work in my discussion of the second quote? Again, OA doesn't answer, so I'll do so.
I do not distort Browing. I have cited him for the proposition that it is possible for a man to be saved without receipt of the sacrament in re (while I also cited the example of a catechumen alone), as Brownson does in discussing a catechumen in the quote above. What have I done more? Where is the "distortion"? In lack of a response and verification of the false claim by OA, again, I'll answer: there is no "distortion" of Browning's position by me.
In OA and his touting of Browson (who is worthy of touting, no question), we see the contradictions and distortions of Catholic dogma by Feeneyites - not me. For we see, just as I said, that Browing was vigorous in his defense of "No Salvation Outside the Church," and at the same time acknowledged the possibility of salvation without receipt of the sacrament of baptism in re.
OA doesnt respond now to the Browson quote directly, as he hasn't before . . . Other than quoting other statements of Brownson where he attacks a liberal and latitudinizing understanding of EENS or BoD, which, Brownson, who does hold to the possibility of a BoD availing to salvation, doesn't hold.
This is cognitive dissonance on OA's part of the highest order. Not only offensive to me in that it hurls defamatory allegations at me - "deranged, unphilosophical, uncatholic, imaginary ideas about Catholic theology" - but offensive to intellectual honesty and true devotion to truth, which abhors contradiction and a position that blithely tolerates such cognitive dissonance.
So, even if OA didn't direct this at me, I respond because it does service to show the faults of an extreme Feeneyism, which unfortunately asserts itself aggressively in this forum, thereby working against the Catholic truths this forum seeks to defend.
DR
-
Let's look at the Brownson quote
.
That guy wasn't a theologian anyway. I don't see why he would have any greater authority than, let's say, a poster on this forum.
-
That guy wasn't a theologian anyway. I don't see why he would have any greater authority than, let's say, a poster on this forum.
At the end of the day, only the Pope and Bishops have teaching authority ... being part of the Ecclesia Docens. Now, the term "authority" outside of that just refers to natural reasons for credibility ... he's well educated due to having an advanced degree from Rome, or some other education, or because of some reputation he had built up due to erudition. Many a "theologian" became flaming Modernists and even open heretics, even long before Vatican II. There's a tendency for some to put theologians on the Ecclesia Docens side of the dividing line, but that's false, something that Msgr. Fenton denounced as an error. At most, one could argue that they're a fair representative of the Ecclesia Dicens, but then at Vatican II, didn't 99.9% of all such "theologians" endorse V2 as essentially Catholic and also accepted the NOM as Catholic?
So in speaking of the term "authority" (used loosely), there's a difference of kind between Papal + Espicopal teaching authority and the authority of theologians, etc. That second category (different in kind) admits of certain degrees. But among the latter, and even really among bishops who, say, go rogue and teach error ... that is in fact where the R&R type of principles come along. If I"m sitting here and we have Cardinal Cushing teaching "No salvation outside the Church is nonsense." ... I'll pass, since he has no authority to impose error.