No one is responding because this has nothing to do with the Feeneyite position. Justification by definition refers to being in a state of grace. What we say is that justification alone does not suffice for salvation. Again, no one responded because this is stupid and irrelevant.
The instrumental cause of True Justification is the Sacrament of Baptism as Trent teaches. Council of Trent Session 6:CHAPTER VII.What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;So, without baptism a person can't be truly justified. And if a person is truly justified he goes straight to heaven.
The BODers ask the question, what happens to a person that is justified before they are baptized, then dies. The answer is that they can't be truly justified except through baptism.It is just common sense if one understands that our conversion and our faith is totally a gift from God. He gives us the knowledge and the impulse to do every milimeter of move in His direction. Why would God "justify" a person before baptism and then pull the rug out from him? It is a ridiculous question, and exactly what I've been saying for years.
Justification is not a guarantee of, nor is it the same thing as salvation. Do not be fooled by liberal trickery.You have to support this quote you cannot merely assert it. Are you claiming it is possible for one who dies justified to be deprived of the Beatific Vision?
The instrumental cause of True Justification is the Sacrament of Baptism as Trent teaches. One can be Baptized and lose their state of Grace through mortal sin, which is why we NEED the Sacrament of Penance. This restores our Justification.We know what Trent teaches. Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII knew what it taught. You need to show how one can be baptized only through sacramental baptism? You have to show how the above sources didn't teach what they appeared to teach.
The answer is no.
Council of Trent Session 6:CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.CHAPTER XIV.
On the fallen, and their restoration.
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance.
No one is responding because this has nothing to do with the Feeneyite position. Justification by definition refers to being in a state of grace. What we say is that justification alone does not suffice for salvation. Again, no one responded because this is stupid and irrelevant.It has everything to do with the Feeneyite position. As I stated above Father Feeney understood that Trent taught that one could be justified by desire but couldn't admit that such a one could be saved. The modern 21st century bloggers claim, against Father Feeney that Trent did not teach one could be justified by desire. Both sides are trying to skirt Catholic truth, two errors which avoid the Catholic conclusion. This should be obvious to the rational being.
Of course you'll try to cite the Baius condemnation, but it's completely irrelevant here. I debunked this when Nishant tried to use it and he had no refutation for my argument.Actually what you post is irrelevant here and most other places as you debunk things in your own mind while proving yourself to be a prideful heretic.
So, without baptism a person can't be truly justified. And if a person is truly justified he goes straight to heaven.You will have to show how all the Catholic theologians misunderstood Trent, Bellarmine, Pius IX and Pius XII while new-fangled feeneyite novelty gets it right.
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.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
The BODers ask the question, what happens to a person that is justified before they are baptized, then dies. The answer is that they can't be truly justified except through baptism?
Proponents of Baptism of Desire are unanimous (I believe) that BOD is not a Sacrament right? The Council of Trent infallibly declares that all True Justice either begins, increases, or is restored with the Sacraments right (see below)? BOD proponents believe that those who receive a BOD are in the state of Justification before the Sacrament of Baptism right? I hope that BODers can maybe start to see their error here.You act as if the "BOD proponents" which include the Catechisms, theologians, Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes teach that once one realizes the necessity of Baptism that they can simply purposely avoid it and just desire it in order to be saved. This manifests either and incredible amount of ignorance or extreme intellectual dishonesty. It could even be both but it is certainly not neither.
BOD is not a Sacrament + True Justification only begins with the Sacrament of Baptism = BOD cannot Justify.
Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Sess. 7, Foreward:"For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. With this view, in order to destroy the errors and to extirpate the heresies, which have appeared in these our days on the subject of the said most holy sacraments,-as well those which have been revived from the heresies condemned of old by our Fathers, as also those newly invented, and which are exceedingly prejudicial to the purity of the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls..."
It is just common sense if one understands that our conversion and our faith is totally a gift from God. He gives us the knowledge and the impulse to do every milimeter of move in His direction. Why would God "justify" a person before baptism and then pull the rug out from him? It is a ridiculous question, and exactly what I've been saying for years.Your post above is ludicrous. The question is simple. Is possible for one to be justified and not be in a state of sanctifying grace? The answer is simple. To avoid the response is to fear the answer contradicts the novel feeneyite error.
The Ridiculous Question:
What happens to a person who is "justified" before he is baptized, then dies before baptism?
(The ludicrous response, the response of 99.99% of the false BODers just shows the insanity the question leads to: Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists etc. can be saved by their belief in a rewarder god.
and rightly St. Augustine called it the vortex of confusion:
St. Augustine on the Errors of Pelagius said:
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. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
Why isn't anyone showing how a justified person is prevented from obtaining the Beatific Vision? Where are your sources that show that one be justified and at the same time not in a state of sanctifying grace?Because one can fall from grace in a moment's time.
Because one can fall from grace in a moment's time.How can one who dies justified not be saved?
Why isn't anyone showing how a person who dies justified is prevented from obtaining the Beatific Vision? Where are your sources that show that one be justified and at the same time not in a state of sanctifying grace?
Why isn't anyone showing how a person who dies justified is prevented from obtaining the Beatific Vision?
Only one person voted as Feeney would the rest of the feeneyites have to pretend that Trent did not teach that one could be justified by desire for the Sacrament.
I'm gonna drop the wall of "dialog" for a mite and try to penetrate that Superman hard melon of yours. You wanna get but hurt about it instead of zipping it and thinking, as you are almost certainly not going to do, then THAT is also on you.It seemed you were going to say something intelligent and I was excited to be able to actually talk with you.
There's a saying about how who and what we are speaks first and "loudest"
YOU, mostly because of your methods and unreason, have no credibility.
It doesn't matter WHAT you post, because YOU are posting it.
Who knows? Maybe you have posted the fix for this whole mess, but no one reads it because, like a serial philAnderer, any can and should assume that the Leopard still has spots.
We must amend, even with complete and perfect Mercy incarnate.
You can't just wish and talk your way out of something you acted your way into.
You've mouthed a mountain of checks that you can't cash. Your credit is crap.
My hand is out; sorry for this being public, but my contortions don't extend to breaking my digital hip whilst having a thrombo trying to make my kit do what it really doesn't want to.
If I'm off grid or not can be indicaTed via votes. Rusty gear is shameful.
out
You asked the wrong question, moran. Question is whether someone in a state of sanctifying grace can die in that state and not (eventually, if after Purgatory) attain the Beatific Vision.Wrong again professional dingbat.
Ask St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist; they can tell you.
Much better said.Or
It seemed you were going to say something intelligent and I was excited to be able to actually talk with you.
But then if I post from an encyclical or any authoritative docuмent and make no other comment "bad". Well. . . because . . . I posted it.
Magnificent combination of balderdash and rubbish on stilts on top of a very tall building. :cheers:
Only one person voted as Feeney would the rest of the feeneyites have to pretend that Trent did not teach that one could be justified by desire for the Sacrament.
Which you so carefully deliver in an info-dumpster.:confused:
Fool me once… mea culpa.
out.
Another gem from Lover of Sophism…Another assertion from the asserter.
Or
Refute the following:
Feeney believed that one could be justified and not saved. One who dies justified dies in a state of sanctifying grace and there is no possible eternal abode for him but heaven. The Feeneyites deny this. The feeneyites are wrong. Other lay modernist feeneyites deny Feeney's teach above and claim that Trent itself was wrong . . . er a . . . taught the opposite of what it taught. They lose either way.
To mitigate this sort of folly, one could read the following:Do you deny that Feeney taught would who died justified apart from sacramental baptism could not be saved?
1. "Spiritual Reading for Every Day"( le Masson)
2. "Christian Philosophy" (de Poissey/ Xtian Schools Brothers)
Both FREE f/ archive.org
Willing to be an aCcountability/swim/dive/battle bud 4 ea.
How can one who dies justified not be saved?Here's to beating a dead horse.......Justification alone is insufficient for salvation.
Here's to beating a dead horse.......Justification alone is insufficient for salvation.That is Feeney teaching. The Dimonds teach the contrary and have to claim that Trent did not teach what it taught to get around it. Both get around the truth in different ways. Feeney was wrong. The Dimonds are wrong.
Decree on the sacraments:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Do you deny that Feeney taught would who died justified apart from sacramental baptism could not be saved?
That is Feeney teaching. The Dimonds teach the contrary and have to claim that Trent did not teach what it taught to get around it. Both get around the truth in different ways. Feeney was wrong. The Dimonds are wrong.
No no. Just to be crystal, it's big boy /accountability time yesterday.I must have missed something. I would like to get in a good discussion with you. You have to do it one step at a time with me without imply I get my theology from V2 or anything similar. I'm quote willing to discuss your thoughts if it can be civil and no accusatory. Simply sticking to the issue without making it personal. This should be second hand among traditional Catholics but we can be the worst sometimes.
I opened the door, and put out my hand, and you slammed the port shut.
Unless and until you amend, feel free to shut your virtual mouth when you're talking to me.
Addressing your post, such as they are, is in no way an evite to tea.
out.
Train wreckIt is a train wreck. I feel sorry for them, and their followers. But especially them as each person that goes to hell because of them will increase their sorrow if they are in or go to Hell or in Purgatory if they are so fortunate. But this would mean their ignorance which they prefer to imagine does not mitigate actually help those who condemn ignorance as something impossible or meaningless, not taken into account by God despite the lack of culpability.
Wrong again professional dingbat.
Feeney believed that one could be justified and not saved. One who dies justified dies in a state of sanctifying grace and there is no possible eternal abode for him but heaven. The Feeneyites deny this. The feeneyites are wrong. Other lay modernist feeneyites deny Feeney's teach above and claim that Trent itself was wrong . . . er a . . . taught the opposite of what it taught. They lose either way.
You're so mentally incompetent that you don't even know you're wrong. I understand very well that Father Feeney distinguishes justification vs. salvation. But your idiotic question is distinguishing justification vs. sanctifying grace. Two different distinctions, moran. Father Feeney did not say that someone who was justified was not in a state of sanctifying grace.I admit that I am not as competent at you with the vitriol.
Does that sound familiar to you?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.
Does that sound familiar to you?
[size={defaultattr}]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.
That is Feeney teaching. The Dimonds teach the contrary and have to claim that Trent did not teach what it taught to get around it. Both get around the truth in different ways. Feeney was wrong. The Dimonds are wrong.Well yes, that is what Fr. Feeney taught. He taught that because that is the actual canon from Trent - what would you expect him to teach, that the sacrament is optional? Of course not.
Well yes, that is what Fr. Feeney taught. He taught that because that is the actual canon from Trent - what would you expect him to teach, that the sacrament is optional? Of course not.The novelty was in teaching that one who dies justified will not go to heaven.
You asked the question, I gave you Trent's answer, you say Trent is wrong. Same o same o.
The novelty was in teaching that one who dies justified will not go to heaven.Your novelty is one not baptized can still attain salvation.
Your novelty is one not baptized can still attain salvation.It is not my novelty. It is necessary with a relative necessity of means. We do not dispute that. It is not intrinsically necessary. One who avoids it will be damned. One who does not know about it through no fault of his own will not be damned for that reason and will be saved if he dies justified.
But that is insufficient because God made reception of the sacrament necessary, which Trent echoed and defined infallibly - but you cannot get that through your think liberal skull.
It is not my novelty. It is necessary with a relative necessity of means. We do not dispute that. It is not intrinsically necessary.Well, we are certain that it is not optional because we have Trent infallibly saying it is not optional - that makes it intrinsically necessary.
One who avoids it will be damned. One who does not know about it through no fault of his own will not be damned for that reason and will be saved if he dies justified.One who does not receive it will be damned, the reason for this is because of his own free will he rejected the graces offered to go and have it done.
Well, we are certain that it is not optional because we have Trent infallibly saying it is not optional - that makes it intrinsically necessary.Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII should have consulted you on the proper interpretation of Trent.
One who does not receive it will be damned, the reason for this is because of his own free will he rejected the graces offered to go and have it done.
Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII should have consulted you on the proper interpretation of Trent.When Trent says "If any one saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." All that really matter is that because YOU say "the sacrament is optional", that is, YOU say "the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation", per Trent, YOU are anathema.
And you really believe the erred or did not teach what they taught. This is mind-boggling. You have been sufficiently brain-washed unless it is a damnable willful blindness you have.
When Trent says "If any one saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." All that really matter is that because YOU say "the sacrament is optional", that is, YOU say "the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation", per Trent, YOU are anathema.Again, I stand by what I say, you can better interpret Trent than the great Doctors of the Church. This is quite amazing.
Do you understand that much, or do you honestly need one of the Church Fathers to interpret that for you too?
At any rate, as I said, same o same o - you asked a question, I gave you the answer quoted directly from Trent, you keep trying to prove Trent is wrong. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Again, I stand by what I say, you can better interpret Trent than the great Doctors of the Church. This is quite amazing.You stand in quick sand and do not understand the simplest of dogmas that even a 5 year old easily and completely understands.
You stand in quick sand and do not understand the simplest of dogmas that even a 5 year old easily and completely understands.
This is what is quite amazing.
It will likely surprise you that some +200 years after the death of St. Robert and some 90 years after the death of St. Alphonsus, there was a Council called "The First Vatican Council". Now it is your responsibility to provide a quote from one of the great Doctors of the Church to interpret this infallible teaching from Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council so we know what he rrreeeeaaallly meant - otherwise, how will we ever know?
"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Well, what do the great Doctors of the Church interpret the above doctrine to rrreeeeaaallly mean?
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)”.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "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.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).They missed the boat on their interpretation of Trent according to you?
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "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… 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 is at least temerarious."
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."
The sky is blue.Again it is Alphonsus' and Bellarmine's interpretation. You ignore this fact and pretend I made it up in order to save face. This is sad that you deny Catholic teaching in order to preserve the feeneyite heresy.
Per LOT, this requires interpretation, because he is used to the mental confusion of V2.
Trent = infallible.Alphonsus understands Trent
St Alphonsus = fallible
St Bellarmine = fallible
Repeat this 100x til it sinks in.
Again it is Alphonsus' and Bellarmine's interpretation. You ignore this fact and pretend I made it up in order to save face. This is sad that you deny Catholic teaching in order to preserve the feeneyite heresy.Just answer the question. What do the great Doctors of the Church say that Pius IX rrreeeaaally meant at The First Vatican Council when he infallibly decreed: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Just answer the question. What do the great Doctors of the Church say that Pius IX rrreeeaaally meant at The First Vatican Council when he infallibly decreed: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."You don't grant the point but switch topics. Then rely on great Doctors whom you reject. The short answer is:
If you cannot or if you will not answer the question, just say so, but at least acknowledge you have no idea how to answer or that you've at least read the question.I did answer the question and you admit you disagree with Bellarmine and Alphonsus. Any good willed person can see where the truth lies.
The topic is Trent said you are anathema for saying the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation.
You say the sacrament is not necessary because some of the great Doctors said as much.
So you completely surrender your brain and any reading comprehension to oppose what Trent said clearly and wholly reject what V1 decreed for absolutely no reason - and no, the mistaken speculations of some of the great Doctors does not give you a free pass to promote your heresies. But I'm sorry to say that one thing is certain - you'll find that out soon enough.
I did answer the question and you admit you disagree with Bellarmine and Alphonsus. Any good willed person can see where the truth lies.
… and the "truth" LIES and lay with its "lover"Excellent refutation.
Alphonsus understands Trent
Bellarmine understands Trent
Pax Vobis does not.
Excellent refutation.
Father Feeney's interpretation of Trent isn't any different from theirs -- he simply draws different implications from the justification vs. salvation distinction. But I personally disagree with this interpretation. I don't think that Trent is teaching "either ... or" (for many reasons that I've articulated and no one's ever refuted). Yet I don't disagree with Father Feeney's general distinction between justification and salvation. I believe it's valid and very real.The "different implication" is the difference between doctrine and heresy. Incredible. Do you even believe yourself?
So, according to the strict Father Feeney position (which I don't follow 100%), Trent has nothing to do with it.
[size={defaultattr}]
Does that sound familiar to you?
That was the question. How is the question wrong?[/size]
I'm obviously talking about your poll question and the very title of your thread.'splain to me Lucy how one can be justified and not in a state of sanctifying grace. Please use supporting docuмentation.
":Can one be Justified and not be in a state of Sanctifying Grace?"
The "different implication" is the difference between doctrine and heresy. Incredible. Do you even believe yourself?
'splain to me Lucy how one can be justified and not in a state of sanctifying grace. Please use supporting docuмentation.
No heresy at all ... except in your positions. Denial of BoD is NOT heresy by any stretch of the imagination. Pelagianism IS heresy, so is denial of EENS, so is your ecclesiology, and so is your rejection of the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.Again false accusations. This is what the Church of Ladislaus is left with.
Nobody is saying that, dumbass. That's my point. That's why it's the wrong question. I've explained this at least 4 times now but you can't comprehend this. We're saying that justification is not the same as salvation and does not suffice for the beatific vision.So one that is in a state of sanctifying grace can be deprived of the beatific vision?
I did answer the question and you admit you disagree with Bellarmine and Alphonsus. Any good willed person can see where the truth lies.You did not nor have you answered any questions, all you do is keep trying to prove Trent is wrong.
You did not nor have you answered any questions, all you do is keep trying to prove Trent is wrong.I do hope against all odds you and the Dimonds make to the same place as all the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes that are enjoying the Beatific Vison whom you dare to claim are erroneous have a happy reunion.
I wholly agree with Trent, I disagree with you and with the speculations of everyone and anyone who disagrees with Trent's explicit teaching that the sacrament is not optional, and whoever says the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation is cursed - this means you because saying this is your lex orandi.
The truth lies with Trent, with which you reject and I wholly accept as it is written.
Honestly, it's not any worse than most of your best efforts, LoT.
No words suffice for a wicked will. How many cooks does this broth need? What maKes me so suited? Nothing. Doesnt surprise me when the truth challenged "confuse" a bit of court jestery, with argumentation.Words of the heretics on a Catholic forum.
So one that is in a state of sanctifying grace can be deprived of the beatific vision?
Ask St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist. They were in a state of sanctifying grace but deprived of the beatific vision.:facepalm:
Define "can". God CAN do anything He wants.
I answer this the same way that Father Feeney did, that we do not know what happens. I am of the opinion that God will not let anyone die in this state ... justification without the Sacrament. If He were to allow it, then they could end up in a limbo type of state, basically perfect natural happiness ... only without the beatific vision.
That is the best thing to do when denying the truth. Just make fun of the one who presents it. Quite Catholic of you. :applause:"Quite heretic of you!"
:facepalm:
These guys truly have their own religion.
Christ opened the Kingdom of Heaven to us at His Ascension. Hello?
Duh, but how? What's the underlying ontology? It wasn't a question of Our Lord opening some physical gate. What does it mean to "open" heaven? There's some ontological change in the souls that allowed them to enjoy the Beatific Vision.The cleansing of the soul from Original Sin. Sanctifying grace is what makes us children of God and heirs of heaven.
The cleansing of the soul from Original Sin. Sanctifying grace is what makes us children of God and heirs of heaven.Where did you get that ignorance?
Where did you get that ignorance?The Catechism you don't trust on BOD. :facepalm:
It is the sacrament of baptism that makes us children of God and heirs to heaven - look it up in the Baltimore Catechism for 1st graders. This is something that being taught in 1st grade, you were expected to remember for the rest of your life.
Ask St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist. They were in a state of sanctifying grace but deprived of the beatific vision.Both St. John the Baptist and St. Joseph died in the Old Dispensation. It was replaced by the New. As soon as Christ opened Heaven, they both went there. I get really angry when I see such idiotic stuff being thrown out by armchair theologian who do not have the faintest idea about anything.
Define "can". God CAN do anything He wants.
I answer this the same way that Father Feeney did, that we do not know what happens. I am of the opinion that God will not let anyone die in this state ... justification without the Sacrament. If He were to allow it, then they could end up in a limbo type of state, basically perfect natural happiness ... only without the beatific vision.
The process of justification starts with faith, fear, hope, etc.
Both St. John the Baptist and St. Joseph died in the Old Dispensation. It was replaced by the New. As soon as Christ opened Heaven, they both went there. I get really angry when I see such idiotic stuff being thrown out by armchair theologian who do not have the faintest idea about anything.… and yet it yaks on, and on, and on …
God CAN do anything He wants? Yes, because whatever He cannot do, He also cannot want. But it is false to say, strictly speaking, that God can do anything. There are a lot of things God cannot do. For example, He cannot sin, He cannot fail, He cannot cease to exist, He cannot create another God, etc.
We’re not interested in how Fr. Feeney answered anything but in how the Catholic Church answers these questions.
The cleansing of the soul from Original Sin. Sanctifying grace is what makes us children of God and heirs of heaven.
Read the entire Treatise on justification in Trent, not just your pet sentence.You pit the Church against the Church. This speaks ignorance or willful blindness. I'll pray you gain the humility to get out of the Church of Ladislaus.
Trent says that these are pre-dispositions for justification, right up through the desire, and that justification itself FOLLOWS AFTER these (including the desire) in the reception of the Sacrament. That's another strong argument against BoD in Trent.
Trent lists the dispositions for justification ... right up through the desire.
Trent then says that justification FOLLOWS AFTER these when the Sacrament of Baptism is received.
So you're saying that one can be in a state of Original Sin and in a state of sanctifying grace at the same time. Please 'splain. That's an interesting BoDist conundrum (among the many paradoxes under which BoDers labor).You put words in my mouth because you cannot refute my truth. Desperate tactic of one who does not want to admit the truth.
Plus, you're wrong. It's the CHARACTER of Baptism that likens the soul to the image of His Son so that we're recognized by the Father as His sons in the spirit of adoption and therefore able to participate in the inner life of the Holy Trinity, aka the Beatific Vision. This being "children of God" is not merely some legal fiction (as the Protestants would have it) but an ontological reshaping of the soul that takes place through the character of Baptism.
Babies cannot be saved apart from sacramental Baptism. Why is this distinction made? Because adults can, if and when sacramental baptism is impossible for them.Again you come up with this lying excuse of there being some situation where it is impossible for God to provide a minister and some water to baptize the sincere adult.
Babies cannot be saved apart from sacramental Baptism. Why is this distinction made? Because adults can, if and when sacramental baptism is impossible for them.Since there is no hope of you ever answering with any possible (or impossible) scenario wherein God finds it impossible to provide the sacrament of baptism to the sincere adult - certainly not anything you can come up with, with any coherent answer easily discernible to Catholic ears, I will leave you with the correct answer, quoted directly from the good Fr. Feeney.........
Hebrews 11: 6 - But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must [1]]believe that he is, and [2] is a rewarder to them that seek him.
BAM!!!
Did Saint Paul forget to mention the Incarnation and Holy Trinity? Why did he not consult Stubborn first!
The adult who dies in the state of mortal sin, whether his original sin has been remitted in the sacrament of baptism or not, will not only be excluded from the possession of the Beatific Vision, but will also be punished for his unrepented offenses against God. And, since there is no forgiveness of sin apart from the Catholic Church, the Mystical body of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation for the individual who passes from this life "outside" the Catholic Church. The person who dies with unremitted mortal sins against God will not only be excluded from the Beatific Vision (thus suffering the penalty of loss), but will also receive the punishment due to the sin for which he has not repented (the penalty of sense). Fenton
And you know better than St. Thomas, rectal orifice?
Notice how this demonic vermin slithers away from Rewarder God theory when questioned on it but then turns around and promotes it at every turn.
Like any Protestant heretic, he cites one line out of context in Scripture as proof for his position and derides St. Thomas.
You might as well take your statement above and address it to St. Thomas, bonehead:
"BAM!!! Did Saint Paul forget to mention the Incarnation and Holy Trinity? Why did he not consult Thomas Aquinas first!"
You arrogant hypocrtical scuм you.
This demon hates the dogma EENS and wishes all manner of infidel to be within the Church. Bottom line.
The key truth in all of this portion of sacred theology is the fact that the Catholic Church is actually the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. In order to be saved from the condition in which we place ourselves by our own mortal sins, we must be in salvific contact with our Divine Redeemer. And the one and only social unit within which this salvific contact can be made is the institution which St. Paul designated as the body of Christ, the society we know as the Catholic Church. Fenton
Hebrews 11: 6 - But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must [1]]believe that he is, and [2] is a rewarder to them that seek him.
BAM!!!
Did Saint Paul forget to mention the Incarnation and Holy Trinity? Why did he not consult Stubborn first!
This is the section of Catholic doctrine which is most sharply opposed to the spirit of the times in which we live. The enunciation of this truth seems always to be designated as "rigorous" or as something worse by those who are animated by the spirit of the world, whether they are openly enemies of the Church or not. Fenton
Yet, if we examine the mentality of this sort of opposition, we find that it is directed ultimately, not against the teachings about the competence and the necessity of the Catholic Church, but actually against the redemptive work of Jesus Christ Our Lord. What is obviously back of objection to this portion of Catholic teaching is the conviction, or at least the claim, that eternal happiness is in some way the native right of all human beings without exception, or at least something within the field of competence of these same human beings. Fenton
Babies cannot be saved apart from sacramental Baptism. Why is this distinction made?
You put words in my mouth because you cannot refute my truth. Desperate tactic of one who does not want to admit the truth.
Some theologians hold that view at least in regard to those who lived in pagan lands where the Gospel had not yet been preached.
Such, however, has not been the case, and any system of thought which bases itself on such false assumptions is completely and fatally unrealistic. As a matter of fact, all mankind, all the progeny of Adam, absolutely needed the forgiveness of sin and the liberation which actually came only through the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ Our Lord. If man's sins had remained unforgiven by God, then man would have been justly and necessarily shut away from the Beatific Vision forever. If man's personal mortal sins had not been forgiven, man would have been justly and necessarily subject to everlasting punishment for those sins. Fenton
St. Paul is teaching that these are required for faith, that they are necessary ... but not that they are sufficient. You do know the distinction necessary vs. sufficient, right? St. Thomas did. That's why he taught otherwise, despite the existence of this particular quote.
"Is that intrinsic, existential, or superfluous necessity?"
Once again, if we are to look upon this section of Catholic teaching accurately and objectively, we must take the trouble to realize that Our Lord did not die the terrible death of the Cross for the attainment of any paltry or merely accidental objective. He died to save men from sin and from the penalties of sin. He died to save men from servitude to Satan, the leader of all who are turned against God, and to save them from everlasting exclusion from the Beatific Vision. He died to save them from the everlasting penalties of hell. No one can have this gift of salvation apart from Him. Fenton
"salvific contact"?Maybe the idea is to aggiornamentize modernism so much that it catastrophically collapses into a Catholic singularity again.
If that isn't a modernist utterance, then I don't know what is.
It is a further fact that, in the designs of God's providence, men come into salvific contact with Our Lord in His kingdom or His Mystical Body. Such, as a matter of fact, is the basic concept of God's kingdom even here on earth, for it is inherently the community of God's chosen people. The kingdom of God on earth is the social unit or the company of those who are "saved" in the sense that they are removed from the dominion of the prince of this world. It is the society within which Our Lord dwells and over which He presides as the true and invisible Head. And, in God's Own dispensation, this society, in the period of the New Testament, is the Catholic Church. Fenton
Some theologians hold that view at least in regard to those who lived in pagan lands where the Gospel had not yet been preached.
St. Alphonsus held it as the "more probable" and "more common" opinion that belief in the Trinity is required by all by necessity of means for salvation.
However, he explains all three opinions, i.e.
1) that explicit belief in the Trinity is "necessitate medii" for all;
2) that explicit belief is "necessitate medii" for all but in some rare cases God makes exception to this;
3) that explicit belief in the Trinity is only "necessitate praecepti" and that only implicit belief in the Trinity is required "necessitate medii."
He calls this third opinion (which he lists as the second) "also probable enough" and he quotes a number of eminent theologians who hold this opinion. Here is the passage in his works:
https://books.google.com/books?id=NR48AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA296 (https://books.google.com/books?id=NR48AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA296)
Some of those who have written with what seems to be the avowed intention of weakening or obscuring this section of Catholic doctrine have admitted (as anyone who claims to be a Catholic must admit) that there is no salvation apart from Our Lord's redemption, but have likewise taught that we do not know the direction of those graces which God gives, through Our Lord, to those who are outside the Catholic Church. This assertion is definitely untrue. Fenton
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised, and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, [1] must believe that he is, and [2] is a rewarder to them that seek him; [even Trent only mentions two necessities, why didn't they check with the Church of Ladislaus first?] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.So as those far more competent than the bloggers on this site have taught from the begging and every where. Faith can be obtained by adults apart before baptism.
BAM!!!
All of the supernatural aids granted by God to any man tend to lead him to the eternal possession of the Beatific Vision. They likewise direct him toward those realities which, either by their very nature or by God's own institution, are requisite for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. One of those realities is the visible Catholic Church, the religious society over which the Bishop of Rome presides as the Vicar of Christ on earth. The graces which God grants to any man outside the Church will inevitably guide him in the direction of the Church. Fenton
If a man continues faithful to the graces given him by God he will certainly attain to eternal salvation. And he will just as certainly obtain that salvation "within" the true Church of Jesus Christ. God's grace will lead a man in the direction of justification, according to the pattern set forth in the teaching of the Council of Trent. It will direct him to believe God's revealed message with a certain assent based on the authority of God Himself revealing. It will lead him in the direction of salutary fear and of hope and of initial love of God and of penance. Ultimately it will lead him to a desire of baptism, even though, in some cases, that desire may be only implicit in character. And baptism is of itself the gateway to the Church, the Mystical body of Christ, within which the life of grace and salvation are to be found. In the case of a man who is already baptized, the preparation for justification includes an intention (at least implicit) of remaining within the kingdom of God to which baptism itself is the gateway. Fenton
Fenton sounds more and more like a modernist with each quote you paste.
It is both idle and misleading to characterize the teaching of the Cantate Domino as in any way "rigorous" or exigent [demanding - J.G.]. This doctrine, which is standard Catholic teaching, is only the expression of what God has taught about the place of His Son's Mystical Body in the economy of man's salvation. Neither the Catholic Church itself nor the teachers of the Church have made the Church something requisite for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. When the Church makes the sort of statement that is found in the Cantate Domino, it is acting merely as the teacher of what God Himself has revealed. As the Mystical Body of Christ, the society within which Our Lord Himself is the supreme Teacher, the Church could not do otherwise. Fenton
Mgr. Fenton’s credentials as a theologian are irreproachable. He was a Doctor of Sacred Theology and a Bachelor of Canon Law; he was professor of theology in several seminaries and at the Catholic University of America; he was editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review; and he was Secretary of the Catholic Theology Society of America, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, and Adviser to the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities. Nor could any reader of his excellent book The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See deny that the various accolades he has thus received from the Church were well merited. John Daly
Disagreeable as the task may seem to some individuals, the Catholic Church has to face the facts. Basic among those facts is the truth that, apart from the redemption which is in Jesus Christ, all men would inevitably have been excluded for all eternity from the possession of the Beatific Vision, in which alone the ultimate and eternal end and happiness of man may be attained. Another fact is that the punishment for unforgiven mortal sin (sin which the guilty party has not repented) is the everlasting penalty of hell, a penalty which includes both the poena damni and poena sensus. Still another fact is that the forgiveness of sin and the infusion of the life of grace is available by the power of Christ only "within" His kingdom, His Mystical Body, which, in this period of the New Testament, is the visible Catholic Church. Such, in the final analysis, is this teaching of the first section of our citation from the Cantate Domino. Fenton
I take it, then, LoT, that you agree with Fenton's assessment that V2 represents an improvement in the area of Catholic ecclesiology.
Once again, at this point it is absolutely imperative to remember that being "within" the Church is not exactly the same as being a member of this social unit. A man is a member of the Church when he is baptized, and when he has neither publicly renounced his baptismal profession of the true faith nor withdrawn from the fellowship of the Church, and when he has not been expelled from the company of the disciples by having received the fullness of excommunication. But a man is "within" the Church to the extent that he can be saved "within" it when he is a member or even when he sincerely, albeit perhaps only implicitly, desires to enter it. The condition requisite for profiting from the reception of the sacraments or from the performance of acts which should be salutary is being "within" the Church. Fenton
2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries. So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses. Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…
Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…
Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, “But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.”
They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire… Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers. Dublin, 1846.
It is more probable that explicit faith is necessary for all four as I have maintained and as I have stated publicly several times.
So as I have said all along the issue has not been definitively settled.
Only if you're an idiot like St. Thomas Aquinas who doesn't know or properly understand Scripture.You are digging dingus. It was sarcastic. My point is Aquinas gets scripture and those who deny his teaching do not.
PS: You still have not admitted fault and retracted that statement, LoT. I'm waiting.
Garbage. It's just that the heresy of Rewarder God theory has never been explicitly condemned. That does not mean the issue hasn't been settled. It has been held infallibly by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. For 1600 years, it was the undisputed belief and teaching of all Catholics everywhere that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation. That has already definitely settled the matter. We await merely an explicit condemnation by the Church of this pernicious heresy.You are the garbage man sir. You trust yourself more than the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Pope.
Nestorianism and Arianism were no less pernicious heresies before they were explicitly condemned than they were after. Same can be said of Rewarder God heresy.
Garbage. It's just that the heresy of Rewarder God theory has never been explicitly condemned. That does not mean the issue hasn't been settled. It has been held infallibly by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. For 1600 years, it was the undisputed belief and teaching of all Catholics everywhere that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation. That has already definitely settled the matter. We await merely an explicit condemnation by the Church of this pernicious heresy.Why is the teaching of people that know far better than you including Sainted Doctors garbage? When will you get an ounce of humility and get over yourself? The devil had a higher intellect than all and chose wrongly. You can learn from that.
Nestorianism and Arianism were no less pernicious heresies before they were explicitly condemned than they were after. Same can be said of Rewarder God heresy.
You are digging dingus. It was sarcastic. My point is Aquinas gets scripture and those who deny his teaching do not.
You're a liar, and the most arrogant & pride-filled person I've ever encountered.You just blab, make false accusations and lie and never show supporting docuмentation. You cry at the truth like the devil when sprinkled with holy water.
You "deny" his teaching by claiming that Rewarder God theory is possible.
You are digging dingus. It was sarcastic. My point is Aquinas gets scripture and those who deny his teaching do not.That misplaced "either/or" rearing its plugly head again...
You are the garbage man sir. You trust yourself more than the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Pope."... the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Pope." meaning LoM
That misplaced "either/or" rearing its plugly head again...People act like the verse from Saint John ends the debate, I sarcastically claim that Aquinas either missed the verse or didn't understand it to teach what he did so clearly on BOD. The good willed get the point. Those that don't want the truth make up ideas such as me disparaging Aquinas. You will have to answer for that.
Don't suppose those that Aquinas mentions as having alternatives possibly viable knew anything even though said mentions are tacit acknowledgments that they do.
"Classic"
Why is the teaching of people that know far better than you including Sainted Doctors garbage? When will you get an ounce of humility and get over yourself? The devil had a higher intellect than all and chose wrongly. You can learn from that.Too bad it seems LoM 'can't'
Too bad it seems LoM 'can't'Too bad you are another professional dingbat who has nothing but his "wit" to contribute.
You just blab, make false accusations and lie and never show supporting docuмentation. You cry at the truth like the devil when sprinkled with holy water.I wonder if "yo mamma infinity" is permitted to expedite these things. Maybe assign numbers like that joke about jokes...
Why is the teaching of people that know far better than you including Sainted Doctors garbage?
Too bad you are another professional dingbat who has nothing but his "wit" to contribute.I have wit! Hurray for me! I need to send this to my exes...
Lover of Truth,Justification is a process. Even the good-willed according to the Church, with implicit faith can gain actual grace that moves them to a supernatural faith and perfect charity putting them within the Church in a salvific way.
As I said in another thread, it is possible for a man to live his whole life without committing sin, since God does not command the impossible.
Are there any such men? Are there any "non-members" who are saved?
If the answer to the second question is like the answer to the first, no.
And why wouldn't the answer be like the first? Because God would be unjust? Because it wouldn't be "fair" to those who never heard the Gospel or had a chance at baptism?
Only to those who inordinately elevate the freedom of man (or misunderstand the nature of man with original sin) while also diminishing the role of God in an individual man's salvation.
The "very hairs of the elect" are all numbered. You can believe God numbers them as "non-members" of the Catholic Church and without baptism, but you're making a radical judgment about the nature of man, God and Providence/Predestination that "Feeneyites" or the rest of us don't accept, and none of your fallible authorities, even when considered on their own language and terms, require us to accept it. Certainly the Church doesn't.
Sorry, your crusade is a tilting at bogeymen of your own imagination.
Have you read the quote from Alphonsus?Cornellius is an example and Saint Paul. If either of them died before actually being baptized, supposing the other requirements were present they would have been saved.
Great point. I'd thumbs up you or whatever but I'm a newbie and evidently can't do that yet.You need 25 rep first, just FYI. Here's a bump to send you on your way....
Lover of Truth,This should be typical.
First, define "implicit" faith "according to the Church."
If you manage to do that, then show us where the Church says the "the good-willed . . . with implicit faith can gain actual grace that moves them to a supernatural faith and perfect charity putting them within the Church in a salvific way."
Have you read the quote from Alphonsus?S. (x), Doctor (x) = "Church"
Lover of Truth,Then you should have no problem with the teaching. But the Church clearly and infallibly teaches if there is such people they can be saved within the Church. That cannot be legitimately denied.
None.
S. (x), Doctor (x) = "Church"(x) not you.
A work of mercy. :)It'd better be... :cheers:
Which one?2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
I already said there is a truth to the teaching, just as the teaching is absolutely true that it is possible that man not sin because God doesn't demand the impossible."It is possible that a man not sin because God doesn't demand the impossible." A man sins seven times a day. It is possible that there are good willed men not "guilty" of mortal sin. It is possible to be in a state of sanctifying grace apart from Baptism. If you do not deny this I'm not sure what we are debating. Justification is a process, if and when it gets to the point before being sacramentally baptized but after gaining supernatural faith and perfect charity (or perfect contrition) one can be saved that way. One in this state will ultimately join the Church and get baptized unless he dies first. He will have died within the Church though not as a member in a state of sanctifying grace which can only be obtained within the Church. I'm not sure why the Feeneyites have heart attacks over this teaching. It truly brings out the worst in them (I hope).
If there were such people . . .
There are none, just like there is no responsible adult who goes through his whole life without committing sin, though not committing sin is possible.
What does this prove, this advancing by Lugo et al of a minority opinion "even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers' testimonies oppose" no less?Simply proves it had not been settled.
Lover of Truth,Nothing ridiculous. Implicit Faith is what Cornelius had before Philip came to him. Actual grace got him to read scripture. Good will got him to want to understand it rightly. Is there anything inaccurate about that?
I asked you these questions:
This prompted your your query, "have you read the St. Alphonsus quote?"
The St. Alphonsus quote doesn't provide a response to my questions.
And if it is "unsettled" (your own words), the Church hasn't pronounced on it or much less "defined" it.
You are offering speculations and contending that the opposing of those speculations - in an "unsettled" matter no less - is somehow heretical, a rejection of Church teaching, etc.
This is ridiculous.
This prompted your your query, "have you read the St. Alphonsus quote?"
The St. Alphonsus quote doesn't provide a response to my questions.
And if it is "unsettled" (your own words), the Church hasn't pronounced on it or much less "defined" it.
You are offering speculations and contending that the opposing of those speculations - in an "unsettled" matter no less - is somehow heretical, a rejection of Church teaching, etc.
This is ridiculous.
Lover of Truth,Typically ridiculous and, frankly, ridiculous is kind to the point of LoT level crazy.
I asked you these questions:
This prompted your your query, "have you read the St. Alphonsus quote?"
The St. Alphonsus quote doesn't provide a response to my questions.
And if it is "unsettled" (your own words), the Church hasn't pronounced on it or much less "defined" it.
You are offering speculations and contending that the opposing of those speculations - in an "unsettled" matter no less - is somehow heretical, a rejection of Church teaching, etc.
This is ridiculous.
I'm have trouble understanding what the debate is about.
Never seems to keep him from spray-and-pray, full-tilt boogie with the sticker book Theology though, or acting / thinking that he DOES understand when he doesn't, which is usually a big piece of the bull-flop flan mess.
What is your specific point of contention?
Belief in God must be explicit, belief in the Incarnation and Trinity probably must be explicit in all circuмstances. Where is the problem?
3) that explicit belief in the Trinity is only "necessitate praecepti" and that only implicit belief in the Trinity is required "necessitate medii." He calls this third opinion (which he lists as the second) "also probable enough" and he quotes a number of eminent theologians who hold this opinion. Here is the passage in his works:Who has a problem with the "above" methodology?
https://books.google.com/books?id=NR48AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA296 (https://books.google.com/books?id=NR48AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA296)
Who has a problem with the above quote?
Who has a problem with the "above" methodology?Whoever wants to answer the question can.
Whoever wants to answer the question can.:facepalm: "Right?"
:facepalm: "Right?"But they won't because the truth contradicts their lie.
I'm basing it on what Alphonsus taught above.
And the mistaken opinion on St. Alphonsus was due to a lack of deeper understanding regarding the Ordinary Universal Magisterium ... which wouldn't be defined clearly until Vatican I. Pursuant to the Vatican I definition, St. Alphonsus would no doubt have revised his opinion. He simply saw a number of prominent theologians (big-named Jesuits) proposing this opinion and he called it less probable for that reason, because a minority of theologians held it.Alphonsus doesn't get it. Ladislaus does.
But just because something remains uncondemned with explicit condemnation doesn't mean it's not heresy or error. Again, Lutheranism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Nestorianism ... all these flourished for a significant length of time before they were explicitly condemned by the Church -- that did not make Arianism a "less probable" opinion, simply because it remained uncondemned; Arianism was a heresy from the inception. It's just that it took people a little while to wake up to it and explicitly condemn it.
You've been citing theologians, mainly Msgr. Fenton recently, saying that "it is possible for non-members of the Church to be joined the Church and saved."
I was basically arguing with you in this fashion: even if the point were Church teaching, it wouldn't mean non-members of the Church have in fact been saved, since the Church without doubt does teach that God does not demand the impossible and that it is possible for a man not to sin, although there is no responsible adult for whom that is true - excepting again the unique cases of Our Lord and Our Lady, who received special graces in order to implement the divine will regarding man's redemption.
In short, the teaching, even if true, doesn't mean that non-members of the Church have been or are saved.
Btw, I challenge the teaching and you haven't established it by quoting Msgr. Fenton. But we don't even have to go there, as I said above.
You don't go around trumpeting as truth the presence of men who have not sinned in heaven simply because it is possible for men not to sin, do you?
You've been citing theologians, mainly Msgr. Fenton recently, saying that "it is possible for non-members of the Church to be joined the Church and saved."1. Is it possible for man to not sin under NO other terms or conditions? In other words, how exactly would one not sin? Put yet another way, by what way/s and/or means; by what specific causes? There seems to be a great deal of unwarranted assumption that follow this assertion. It was not only possible for the BVM to not sin, but this IS actually the case. It didn't "just happen that way" however.
I was basically arguing with you in this fashion: even if the point were Church teaching, it wouldn't mean non-members of the Church have in fact been saved, since the Church without doubt does teach that God does not demand the impossible and that it is possible for a man not to sin, although there is no responsible adult for whom that is true - excepting again the unique cases of Our Lord and Our Lady, who received special graces in order to implement the divine will regarding man's redemption.
In short, the teaching, even if true, doesn't mean that non-members of the Church have been or are saved.
Btw, I challenge the teaching and you haven't established it by quoting Msgr. Fenton. But we don't even have to go there, as I said above.
You don't go around trumpeting as truth the presence of men who have not sinned in heaven simply because it is possible for men not to sin, do you?
DZ,I'm not at odds with you man. She was just the biggest example to hand. Disregard that bit if it confuses.
I don't get you.
I said it is the actual case that the BVM did not sin due to extraordinary graces received from God.
Of course, the resistance to sin is impossible without grace. It is indeed possible for the bushman not to sin, or else he would not have personal fault.While that's a good distinction to maintain, I think that I still fail to make my point.
However, salvation is a matter of efficacious graces which come from the hand of God, which include reception of the sacrament of baptism.
As Ladislaus said recently, one may accept a version of BOD that entails a somewhat imperfect membership, but that is not non-membership.
This is one of the problems with Msgr. Fenton's terminology, and of course LOT's - nonmembers being saved or joined to the Church.
I'm beginning to think that LoT is on someone's payroll to post here. He only posts Monday through Friday during earlyish first shift hours. Either that or he sits at work posting here all day. He seems to get a post in every 10 seconds.Shady either way. Something at right that situation.
Only if you're an idiot like St. Thomas Aquinas who doesn't know or properly understand Scripture.I had a bad opinion after seeing your underhanded tactics Ladislaus. But this really takes the cake. Show the link where this is stated.
PS: You still have not admitted fault and retracted that statement, LoT. I'm waiting.