Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com (Read 57310 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #750 on:** May 24, 2025, 06:55:58 PM »

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.

hgodwinson · « **Reply #751 on:** May 25, 2025, 04:41:24 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on May 24, 2025, 04:18:07 PM

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)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #752 on:** May 26, 2025, 12:21:13 AM »

+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?

hgodwinson · « **Reply #753 on:** May 26, 2025, 12:59:08 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 26, 2025, 12:21:13 AM

+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.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #754 on:** May 27, 2025, 10:19:25 PM »

"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.

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #755 on:** May 28, 2025, 05:58:47 AM »

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.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #756 on:** May 28, 2025, 06:42:13 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on May 28, 2025, 05:58:47 AM

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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #757 on:** May 28, 2025, 07:46:31 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on May 28, 2025, 05:58:47 AM

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.

VivaJesus · « **Reply #758 on:** May 28, 2025, 09:27:53 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on May 28, 2025, 05:58:47 AM

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:

DecemRationis · « **Reply #759 on:** May 28, 2025, 10:51:30 AM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on May 27, 2025, 10:19:25 PM

"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.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #760 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:56:10 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on May 28, 2025, 10:51:30 AM

Quote

"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:

Quote

"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

Yeti · « **Reply #761 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:01:30 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Yesterday at 08:56:10 AM

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.

Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com (Read 57310 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

hgodwinson

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Pax Vobis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

hgodwinson

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

OABrownson1876

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

anonymouscatholicus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

WorldsAway

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Pax Vobis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

VivaJesus

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

DecemRationis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

DecemRationis

Re: Baptismofdesire.com

Yeti

Re: Baptismofdesire.com