Since LoT and others persist in hiding behind the concept of Baptism of Desire and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I felt it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.
LoT has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
LoT has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").
LoT has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying".
These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.
Trent DOGMATICALLY taught the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them (in the same mindset as LoT). Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church and reaffirmed the requirement of membership in the Church for salvation.
If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoT and Ambrose to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.
After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire). To say that the desire itself justifies entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:
St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
LoT, Ambrose, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" for objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.
Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.
This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.
Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"
Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.
In your list of "quasi-authoritative sources" you left out those sources that taught implicit baptism of desire such as: St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pope Pius IX, The Baltimore Catechism and The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X to name some.
Quote from: Ad Jesum per MariamIn your list of "quasi-authoritative sources" you left out those sources that taught implicit baptism of desire such as: St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pope Pius IX, The Baltimore Catechism and The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X to name some.
Pope Pius IX taught no such thing.
I have seen where the Baltimore Catechism and St. Pius X Catechism teach BoD but I have not seen any citations regarding implicit BoD.
St. Alphonsus uses the term implicit in a different way than what you want it to mean, and his theology of BoD has been demonstrated to be faulty.
So you can list (most of it wrongly) about half a dozen sources that hold implicit BoD.
And let's get this straight, by implicit BoD you mean that non-Catholics can be saved.
This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.
Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
Quote from: Lover of Truthhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
WOW! Now that is one very impressive collection of references.
Bravo!!
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Lover of Truthhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
WOW! Now that is one very impressive collection of references.
Bravo!!
In fact, the list reads well as a shopping list for used books... abebooks.com
Since LoT and others persist in hiding behind the concept of Baptism of Desire and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I felt it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.
LoT has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
LoT has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").
LoT has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying".
These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.
Trent DOGMATICALLY taught the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them (in the same mindset as LoT). Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church and reaffirmed the requirement of membership in the Church for salvation.
If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoT and Ambrose to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.
After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire). To say that the desire itself justifies entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:
St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
LoT, Ambrose, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" for objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.
Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.
This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.
Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"
Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.
Here is a list of modernist errors brought by the heresy of "Salvation by Implicit Desire" or "Salvation by Justification Alone" that BODers actually promote (most SSPX and Resistance people at least believe in BOD for catechumens only, as they hold that the Catholic Faith at the very least! is necessary for justification. It is the sedevacantists (in their vast majority) that hold that not even the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation:
Quote from: Ladislausbla bla, bla bla bla
I don't know if it could be explained any better!
Since Lover of Error and others persist in hiding behind the concept of 'Baptism of Desire' and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I [thought] it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.
LoE has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared, "Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. iii. 5).
The word, "YOU" refers to the Universal Church, from the mouth of Our Lord Himself.
LoE has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").
LoE has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying."[size=2If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoE and Ambrosia to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.
These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what
the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.
Trent DOGMATICALLY taught
the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation,
against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them
(in the same mindset as LoE).
Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church
and reaffirmed the requirement of membership
in the Church for salvation.
After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire).
To say that the desire itself justifies, entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:
St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
LoE, Ambrosia, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" in place of objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.
Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.
This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed.
Yet LoE, Ambrosia, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists [it's not really so ironic once you realize their common foundation] -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.
[Directing the stones of their own logic to themselves in their own glass houses, they show themselves to be just as 'unreliable' as the Bergoglios and Ratzingers at whom they hurl their hypocritical and illogical stones. This is why they refuse to study logic and they refuse to think logically.]
Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification.
Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORICAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! --Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless formula, but "NO!!!"
Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.[/size]
I don't know if it could be explained any better!
The Americanists are determined to change the dogma on salvation. BOD was never relevant or an issue with EENS but the Americanists made it one and unfortunately today the Americanist error of invincible ignorance as an exception to EENS has spread throughout the Church as to become "Church teaching". The sedevacantists here in CI have elevated the concept into a DOGMA, which not even the conciliar popes have done.
The teaching on explicit baptism of desire, however, has been given definitively and explicitly at the Council of Trent. This we must believe as Catholics.
Since Lover of Error and others persist in hiding behind the concept of 'Baptism of Desire' and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I [thought] it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.
LoE has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared, "Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. iii. 5).
The word, "YOU" refers to the Universal Church, from the mouth of Our Lord Himself.
LoE has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").
LoE has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying."If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoE and Ambrosia to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.
These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what
the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.
Trent DOGMATICALLY taught
the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation,
against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them
(in the same mindset as LoE).
Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church
and reaffirmed the requirement of membership
in the Church for salvation.
After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire).
To say that the desire itself justifies, entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:
St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
LoE, Ambrosia, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" in place of objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.
Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.
This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed.
Yet LoE, Ambrosia, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists [it's not really so ironic once you realize their common foundation] -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.
[Directing the stones of their own logic to themselves in their own glass houses, they show themselves to be just as 'unreliable' as the Bergoglios and Ratzingers at whom they hurl their hypocritical and illogical stones. This is why they refuse to study logic and they refuse to think logically.]
Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification.
Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORICAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! --Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless formula, but "NO!!!"
Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.
I don't know if it could be explained any better!
Quote from: CantarellaThe Americanists are determined to change the dogma on salvation. BOD was never relevant or an issue with EENS but the Americanists made it one and unfortunately today the Americanist error of invincible ignorance as an exception to EENS has spread throughout the Church as to become "Church teaching". The sedevacantists here in CI have elevated the concept into a DOGMA, which not even the conciliar popes have done.
Correct.
And if you go to a CMRI chapel and tell the priest that BoD is not doctrine, don't be at all surprised if he tells you that if you think that way, you're not Catholic, and that you'll have to find somewhere else for the sacraments, even if every church within 50 miles is NovusOrdo. I know this happens because I saw it happen.
The CMRI is filled apparently with Lovers of Error. (Not unlike CI threads, actually.)
.
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).
Quote from the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:QuoteThat one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).
If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved (without explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity and an explicit desire to be a Catholic); they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless formula, but "NO!!!"
Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.
.
... crickets ...
.
Do you agree that the teaching pictured above is Catholic BoD?
Are you referring to me as a heretic? If so, please refrain from such.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieDo you agree that the teaching pictured above is Catholic BoD?
Are you referring to me as a heretic? If so, please refrain from such.
As far as I can tell, the image represents the Catholic version of BoD, something to which you do not hold. This has nothing to do with the OP.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieDo you agree that the teaching pictured above is Catholic BoD?
Are you referring to me as a heretic? If so, please refrain from such.
As far as I can tell, the image represents the Catholic version of BoD, something to which you do not hold. This has nothing to do with the OP.
How is it that you would assert that I do not hold the teaching I posted? As you are mistaken, I assure you that I hold the teaching as described in the reference posted.
It is odd that you would tell me what I hold as true and what I do not. Are you psychic?
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieDo you agree that the teaching pictured above is Catholic BoD?
Are you referring to me as a heretic? If so, please refrain from such.
As far as I can tell, the image represents the Catholic version of BoD, something to which you do not hold. This has nothing to do with the OP.
How is it that you would assert that I do not hold the teaching I posted? As you are mistaken, I assure you that I hold the teaching as described in the reference posted.
It is odd that you would tell me what I hold as true and what I do not. Are you psychic?
You've stated your beliefs on other threads.
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/moreBoD.jpg)
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/moreBoD.jpg)
Yet, these posters do not believe in BOD as taught by the Church...
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarie(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/moreBoD.jpg)
Yet, these posters do not believe in BOD as taught by the Church...
Since you linked my post, and continue to speak as if you know the mind of others, which is neither proper or feasible, I , for clarity, would like to inquire who are you referring to. Pope Pius IX perhaps?Quote from: Pope Pius IXThere are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."-
In the first paragraph cited, Pope Pius IX, talks about those struggling with invincible ignorance. These cases if ever are ONLY known to God. The same with BOD, which can only ever be hypothetical to us. Never a reality as if we could see the dead or invent divinely revealed dogma. That is why BOD is hypothetical only and not de fide. The liberal and Americanist heretical error is to think of the invincible ignorant as a physical exception to EENS as to justify and promote salvation outside the Church for the non-Catholics.
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that all non Catholics with no exception on earth need to enter the Church formally, explicitly for salvation and if there are any non Catholics EVER saved in invincible ignorance will be known ONLY to God. What has been revealed by God to us is that the Catholic Faith and membership in the Church are necessary for all justification and salvation.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Pope Pius IXThere are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Just for clarity, would you please tell me what you believe Pope Pius IX is saying here?
Not trying to call you out but it would be interesting to have everyone commenting on this thread to state what there understanding of this paragraph is.
No comments about what others say, just their own simple understanding.
After you answer the question I would be more than happy to go second.
Note: Let us use the correct translation
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
So, in summary, from this single paragraph, I am assured of two, mutually inclusive things, 1. that it is not possible to arrive at eternal salvation alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity, and 2. that God, by His divine light and grace, may allow someone who is ignorant in certain terms of our Holy religion to attain eternal life.
Here above, in my opinion, the pope is clearly addressing an issue, that there are "some Catholics" who believe " it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation" while "living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity", which he identifies as "certainly opposed to Catholic teaching." Clear enough. The next half of this paragraph is in relation to the first, as he continues to address the issue, identifying that there are people "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion", with a qualification that these people are "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives" and Pope Pius IX states in no uncertain terms that they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." Continuing, "Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
So, in summary, from this single paragraph, I am assured of two, mutually inclusive things, 1. that it is not possible to arrive at eternal salvation alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity, and 2. that God, by His divine light and grace, may allow someone who is ignorant in certain terms of our Holy religion to attain eternal life.
Quote from: Ad Jesum per MariamThe teaching on explicit baptism of desire, however, has been given definitively and explicitly at the Council of Trent. This we must believe as Catholics.
That's a damned lie. Trent does not mention the words "baptism of desire" therefore it cannot be said that it is "given explicitly and definitively at the Council of Trent."
.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarie(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/moreBoD.jpg)
Yet, these posters do not believe in BOD as taught by the Church...
Since you linked my post, and continue to speak as if you know the mind of others, which is neither proper or feasible, I , for clarity, would like to inquire who are you referring to. Pope Pius IX perhaps?Quote from: Pope Pius IXThere are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
At least John Anthony Marie has finally shown the honesty to bring up what the whole BOD promotion is really about: the error of invincible ignorance as a modernist exception to EENS.
Well, let us talk about invincible ignorance.
Let us start by citing the continuous paragraph that the BODers sedevacantists coneveniently fail to bring when citing Pope Pius IX:Quote
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."-
In the first paragraph cited, Pope Pius IX, talks about those struggling with invincible ignorance. These cases if ever are ONLY known to God. The same with BOD, which can only ever be hypothetical to us. Never a reality as if we could see the dead or invent divinely revealed dogma. That is why BOD is hypothetical only and not de fide. The liberal and Americanist heretical error is to think of the invincible ignorant as a physical exception to EENS as to justify and promote salvation outside the Church for the non-Catholics.
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that all non Catholics with no exception on earth need to enter the Church formally, explicitly for salvation and if there are any non Catholics EVER saved in invincible ignorance will be known ONLY to God. What has been revealed by God to us is that the Catholic Faith and membership in the Church are necessary for all justification and salvation.
Quote from: GJCQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Pope Pius IXThere are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Just for clarity, would you please tell me what you believe Pope Pius IX is saying here?
Not trying to call you out but it would be interesting to have everyone commenting on this thread to state what there understanding of this paragraph is.
No comments about what others say, just their own simple understanding.
After you answer the question I would be more than happy to go second.
Note: Let us use the correct translation
Thank you. It is refreshing to to read a honest reply.
What I believe this is saying. In context, Pope Pius IX is writing about "The Promotion of False Doctrines", a "sacrilegious war brought upon the Catholic Church".Quote
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
Here above, in my opinion, the pope is clearly addressing an issue, that there are "some Catholics" who believe " it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation" while "living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity", which he identifies as "certainly opposed to Catholic teaching." Clear enough. The next half of this paragraph is in relation to the first, as he continues to address the issue, identifying that there are people "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion", with a qualification that these people are "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives" and Pope Pius IX states in no uncertain terms that they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." Continuing, "Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
So, in summary, from this single paragraph, I am assured of two, mutually inclusive things, 1. that it is not possible to arrive at eternal salvation alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity, and 2. that God, by His divine light and grace, may allow someone who is ignorant in certain terms of our Holy religion to attain eternal life.Quote"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
There are no "non-Catholics saved in invincible ignorance" Canterella. If you say this you deny infallible dogma. Those in invincible ignorance must accept the Catholic Faith before they die. They must also be perfectly contrite for their sins. God can give them these graces without water baptism. They must, however, cooperate. You are confusing the doctrine of EENS with the doctrine Baptism of Desire.
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. […] They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
There are no "non-Catholics saved in invincible ignorance" Canterella. If you say this you deny infallible dogma. Those in invincible ignorance must accept the Catholic Faith before they die. They must also be perfectly contrite for their sins. God can give them these graces without water baptism. They must, however, cooperate. You are confusing the doctrine of EENS with the doctrine Baptism of Desire.
Exactly, the obligation to receive the Sacraments still remains for this hypothetical invincible ignorant. God can and will ensure that His chosen souls, his Elect, do not die without receiving the sacraments needed for salvation, for God is omnipotent and cannot deceive or be deceived.
St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without Baptism and the Faith.
The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin suffices for damnation.Quote from: Florence
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. […] They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without Baptism and the Faith.
Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.
“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,QuoteArticle 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,QuoteArticle 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Do you somehow disagree?
The Church on Theologians
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26 1749: “The Church s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21, Aug. 12. 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church .”
Pope : "It is well known that the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching the substance of the Sacraments". Thus even the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words or matter in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism.
" As the Council of Trent teaches the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments".
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,QuoteArticle 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Do you somehow disagree?
289 years after St. Thomas died, The Council of Trent disagreed and decreed infallibly that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation (although not all sacraments are necessary for every individual) and that whoever says that the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, is anathema.
Now 451 years later, you disagree with the council of Trent.
Try to always remember that there is One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism, not three.
So where did denials of BOB and BOD get their start? In the opening couple centuries of the Church this question seems to have never come up. And in the next several centuries several ancient Church Fathers mentioned both BOB and BOD, though there were some few who listed only the martyrs (BOB) as being any exception to the requirement to be baptized in water. And yet, through selective quotation many of them are made to seem as if they entertained a variety of different opinions about BOB and BOD among themselves. However, no useful quotes have been found (even out of context) to suggest that any of the most ancient Fathers were in any way aware of any such difference of opinion among themselves
Quote from: Lover of TruthSo where did denials of BOB and BOD get their start? In the opening couple centuries of the Church this question seems to have never come up. And in the next several centuries several ancient Church Fathers mentioned both BOB and BOD, though there were some few who listed only the martyrs (BOB) as being any exception to the requirement to be baptized in water. And yet, through selective quotation many of them are made to seem as if they entertained a variety of different opinions about BOB and BOD among themselves. However, no useful quotes have been found (even out of context) to suggest that any of the most ancient Fathers were in any way aware of any such difference of opinion among themselves
This actually might be a start to a more rational dicussion. I think that you have the question backwards. It isn't a question of where the DENIALS of BoB and BoD got their start, but rather where BoB and BoD THEMSELVES got their start, for the default position is the universal acceptance by the Church Fathers regarding the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation. That is what they all believed dogmatically. It is within THAT context that we must view whatever discussion they made of BoD. It sounds like you're ready to honestly characterize the Patristic evidence or lack thereof. Of the hundreds upon hundreds of Church Fathers, only about 10 of them make any mention of there being exceptions to the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. That alone should tell you something about their mindset. Of these 10, only a single one, St. Augustine, can be quoted as proposing Baptism of Desire; St. Augustine later retracted this and can be quoted as making the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. SEVERAL of the BoB Church Fathers, as you finally acknowledge, rejected BoD. I believe it was Tertullian who spoke of the TWO Baptisms.
Dare I hope that this might be the beginning of some refreshing honesty?
One salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought.
If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.
Quote from: Lover of TruthOne salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought.
Correct. What we see is that the early Christians believed absolutely in the necessity of Baptism for salvation.Quote from: Father William JurgensIf there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.
It's why the Christians wept so bitterly at the passing away of Valentinian. People SIMPLY believed in the necessity of Baptism for salvation and didn't immediately begin a twenty-minute equivocation about exceptions.
There's no evidence that BoB/BoD considerations were revealed by Our Lord and were taught universally by the Church Fathers.
This is merely a statement without any proof.
One can easily imagine the climate in which BoB speculation arose. Perhaps some unbaptized catechumens were martyred, whereas you had some people living sinful lives right up to the end and then receiving Baptism on their deathbeds. St. Augustine explicitly mentions this reasoning, but then in the end rejects it. In other words, this kind of thinking originated in a questioning of what would be fair or right of God to do, but St. Augustine dismissed this pseudo-theological "reasoning" as leading to a vortex of confusion.
At no point was there ANY evidence that BoB or BoD could EVER be applied to anyone other than a catechumen, whom the early Christians formally received with a liturgical ceremony as "Christians" though not "fideles".
There is a ton of evidence to the contrary so long as one is within the Church by desire, which means he has a supernatural faith and perfect charity, unless the collective onslaught of teaching to the contrary is collectively false.
This idea that non-Catholics can be saved by some BoD-like mechanism NEVER EVER ENTERED THE WILDEST THOUGHTS OF ANY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS. And THIS is my chief problem.
If such official teachings as those cited in the previous installment were meant to be applicable to these particular cases, this kind of discussion would not have been permissible. One finds no further discussions on the question of BOB or BOD until the late 1120's when Peter Abélard, who had just recently put forth (but then had already withdrawn) some rather irregular ideas regarding the Holy Trinity, first began to deny that those ancient Church Fathers and Doctors, such as Augustine and Ambrose, could have been right about allowing for BOD.
Water baptism is a mechanism, instituted by Christ albeit. But a mechanism none-the-less. Something being a mechanism does not deny the fact.
Quote from: Lover of TruthWater baptism is a mechanism, instituted by Christ albeit. But a mechanism none-the-less. Something being a mechanism does not deny the fact.
Yes, yes. It's the instrumental cause (to use actual theological terms instead of your babble), but that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary. You think that by proclaiming it a "mechanism" that somehow makes it optional.
It is not optional for those who are aware of its necessity.
Quote from: Lover of TruthIt is not optional for those who are aware of its necessity.
So you're saying that it IS "optional" for those who aren't aware of its necessity. Methinks you have directly anathematized yourself by word-for-word contradicting a Canon of Trent.
In any case, you have just again reduced the necessity to one of precept.
but that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.
Lo?,Quotebut that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved"
That sounds absolutely necessary to me, when you consider Who said it.
That is not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute fact.
Quote from: J.PaulLo?,Quotebut that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved"
That sounds absolutely necessary to me, when you consider Who said it.
That is not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute fact.
How did Bernard, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Trent, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII miss this?
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,QuoteArticle 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Do you somehow disagree?
289 years after St. Thomas died, The Council of Trent disagreed...
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
The BOD promoters or those who believe in non-Catholic "salvation by implicit desire" are actually radically opposed to the teaching of St. Thomas, Alphonsus, and Robert Bellarmine who they are very fond of citing. All these saints held the teaching that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff and a "votum" to receive the sacrament was necessary for salvation.........or as Vatican II heretics......or as "deposed" popes..........
It should surprise no one when those who follow this loose interpretation on EENS end up at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Quote from: J.PaulLo?,Quotebut that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved"
That sounds absolutely necessary to me, when you consider Who said it.
That is not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute fact.
How did Bernard, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Trent, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII miss this?
At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.
“After the Incarnation,” Saint Thomas says, “all men if they wish to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” ...
“After the Incarnation…all men in order to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Summa Theol. , Part II-II, q. 2, art. 7; and idem art. 8)
For just as a man cannot live in the flesh unless he is born in the flesh, even so a man cannot have the spiritual life of grace unless he is born again spiritually. This regeneration is effected by Baptism: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is manifest that all are bound to receive baptism, and that without it there cannot be salvation for men. (Collat. de Pater. Ex. of the Ap. Creed , 10th Art. Summa , Part III, q. 68, art. 1, In Corp. )
Quick question for you Ladislaus; this seemed the appropriate place. You've outlined a formulation of BOD with which you wouldn't generally take exception (or at least would "leave alone" as it were), though you've mentioned that you personally still wouldn't accept it. With your fantastic defense of canonizations, General Councils, and universal disciplinary laws in mind, how do you square the 1917 Code with your own framework vis-a-vis ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens?
Perhaps the so-called BoDers should be referred to as simply Cushingites from now on. :scratchchin:
Perhaps the so-called BoDers should be referred to as simply Cushingites from now on. :scratchchin:
Quote from: AlcuinPerhaps the so-called BoDers should be referred to as simply Cushingites from now on. :scratchchin:
I use the term all the time in response to the "Feeneyite" insult.
Cushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: AlcuinPerhaps the so-called BoDers should be referred to as simply Cushingites from now on. :scratchchin:
I use the term all the time in response to the "Feeneyite" insult.
You go beyond Feeney's errors, so you are neo-Feeneyites.
Ambrose,QuoteCushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.
Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.
Ambrose,QuoteCushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.
Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.
Quote from: HistrionicsQuick question for you Ladislaus; this seemed the appropriate place. You've outlined a formulation of BOD with which you wouldn't generally take exception (or at least would "leave alone" as it were), though you've mentioned that you personally still wouldn't accept it. With your fantastic defense of canonizations, General Councils, and universal disciplinary laws in mind, how do you square the 1917 Code with your own framework vis-a-vis ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens?
Again, notice that the 1917 Code speaks very specifically of Catechumens, which is perfectly in line with a Catholic understanding of BoD.
I've dealt with the 1917 Code before. As such, a code of law, it's disciplinary and not doctrinal. It's not defining anything. So, in the context of burials, for pastoral reasons, it allows for the possibility that a catechumen might be saved via BoD; it's contrary to the earlier discipline of the Church. So I have taken exception to the Dimonds who believe that even the limited, properly understood BoD, is heretical ... since the Church has always allowed the opinion. In fact, I consider that view to be schismatic. But, as per my previous post, the BoDer crusade isn't about the occasional catechumen who MIGHT be saved, but about undermining EENS. Just as there's no guaranteed that ANYONE who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, so there's no guarantee that any catechumen who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, just that the Church leave it open as a possibility in the pastoral context. There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by BoD or that God would will any of His elect to be saved by this means when it's easily possible for Him to bring the Sacrament to any of His elect. I see BoD as speculative theology for which there's no actual or practical need and for which there's no actual proof.
So, if you want to believe that some catechumen or other who died without Baptism (which probably happens once in a blue moon) MIGHT be saved via BoD, then more power to you. But when people start talking about Great Thumb worshippers being saved via some distorted "BoD", that's when I have problems with you, and the Doctors of the Church are all ON MY SIDE on this matter, as is the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, once you start extending salvation to non-Catholics, you've got all of Vatican II in a nutshell, and LoT and Ambrose, who hold the same ecclesiology as Vatican II, are schismatic for rejecting Vatican II, since they have nothing to stand on.
Quote from: J.PaulAmbrose,QuoteCushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.
Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.
No, Cushing was an ecuмenist. He has nothing to do with this, but you are trying to tie us to him for the emotional effect it gives. I will deny it now and keep denying it. I could care less about Cushing, he was a stooge and a buffoon in the 1950's, and in my opinion, a stupid and arrogant man. By the 1960's he was openly praying with Protestants, and most likely a heretic.
If you want to accuse me of anything, call me a Catholic who learns from the Pope and the Holy Office. Cushing is nothing more than a side show here because you people just do not want to admit that your real problem is not Cushing it's with Pope Pius XII who approved the Holy Office Letter.
That is the crux of this matter, the Pope through the medium of the Holy Office in a published docuмent (therefore public and binding) on a matter of Faith explained a point of doctrine and corrected those in error.
The group of you will not submit to this Papal teaching, and you even go further by extending the original SBC error to a much more serious error of denying Baptism of Desire and Blood itself.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,QuoteArticle 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Do you somehow disagree?
289 years after St. Thomas died, The Council of Trent disagreed...
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is in perfect agreement with the Council's decrees:QuoteCanons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.
Keep carefully avoiding quoting St Thomas on the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church":Quote from: Angelic Doctor
“After the Incarnation,” Saint Thomas says, “all men if they wish to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” ...
“After the Incarnation…all men in order to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Summa Theol. , Part II-II, q. 2, art. 7; and idem art. 8)
As far as BOD/BOB st. Thomas actually only allowed the possibility for martyrs and catechumens "who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum )"Quote
For just as a man cannot live in the flesh unless he is born in the flesh, even so a man cannot have the spiritual life of grace unless he is born again spiritually. This regeneration is effected by Baptism: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is manifest that all are bound to receive baptism, and that without it there cannot be salvation for men. (Collat. de Pater. Ex. of the Ap. Creed , 10th Art. Summa , Part III, q. 68, art. 1, In Corp. )
Selective quoting may be misleading and no balanced.
The post has already been addressed.
Quote from: CantarellaThe post has already been addressed.
Yes, the obstinate BoDers keep trotting out the same half dozen or so quotes and pretend that they have discovered some amazing new proof for their pseudo-dogma.
If you think that the modern Popes or Cushing's friends in the Holy Office were above acting upon political considerations, think again.
Actually, that is an apt description of their soft doctrine, a pseudo dogma.
The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Quote from: Saint Thomas AquinasThe sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Quote from: Saint Thomas AquinasThe sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Saint Thomas AquinasThe sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
In the quote I provided, Saint Thomas Aquinas is quoting Saint Augustine.
St. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
Quote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
Quote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
And according the poster Ambrose, a heretic.
Quote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
And according the poster Ambrose, a heretic.
Untrue.
Quote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
Maybe, just maybe, although I won't hold my breath, you could provide a reference for the statement, just once, pretty pretty please...
"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
Maybe, just maybe, although I won't hold my breath, you could provide a reference for the statement, just once, pretty pretty please...
That's been thoroughly docuмented on several threads here. Look it up. Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner, the biggest proponent of BoD, admitted that Augustine rejected the idea in the end.
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
Maybe, just maybe, although I won't hold my breath, you could provide a reference for the statement, just once, pretty pretty please...
That's been thoroughly docuмented on several threads here. Look it up. Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner, the biggest proponent of BoD, admitted that Augustine rejected the idea in the end.
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
A Saint Benedict Center webpage publication is not a authoritative reference in even the wildest of imagination. Even further, there is a problem withthe webpage that is causing it to not display. Divine Intervention perhaps?
Quote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: J.PaulQuote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausSt. Augustine rejected BoD later on.
A fact often overlooked by BoDers.
St. Augustine must have been a "Feeneyite" in the end!
And according the poster Ambrose, a heretic.
Untrue.
By your own stated criteria, TRUE!
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Lets put this issue to rest so that we can get on with the more pressing matters of the day.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Lets put this issue to rest so that we can get on with the more pressing matters of the day.
FYI, that link is as big a lie as per usual ...
He references Tuas libenter, ...
II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith (Pius IX).
•
“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs
and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters
which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching
power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore,
by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to
belong to faith.”
Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.
III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal
decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as
theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).
•
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all
those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences,
in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their
writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention
should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept
and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also
necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining
to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and
also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and
constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,
so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine,
although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some
theological censure.”
Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684
...IMO.
Quote from: Stubborn...IMO.
As I have stated before, your opinion and the change in my pocket buys me a cup of coffee, nothing more.
I do not care for your opinion, I am looking for something of substance to support your claims.
.....For the rest, We cannot hide from you that We have been made rather anxious: for We feared that the example of this Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching which, in virtue of the divine institution, belongs properly to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who in union and agreement with the Successor of St. Peter; and that, as a consequence of this harm done to the government of the Church, the principle of unity and obedience in matters of faith might eventually be weakened in many souls. We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: HistrionicsQuick question for you Ladislaus; this seemed the appropriate place. You've outlined a formulation of BOD with which you wouldn't generally take exception (or at least would "leave alone" as it were), though you've mentioned that you personally still wouldn't accept it. With your fantastic defense of canonizations, General Councils, and universal disciplinary laws in mind, how do you square the 1917 Code with your own framework vis-a-vis ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens?
Again, notice that the 1917 Code speaks very specifically of Catechumens, which is perfectly in line with a Catholic understanding of BoD.
I've dealt with the 1917 Code before. As such, a code of law, it's disciplinary and not doctrinal. It's not defining anything. So, in the context of burials, for pastoral reasons, it allows for the possibility that a catechumen might be saved via BoD; it's contrary to the earlier discipline of the Church. So I have taken exception to the Dimonds who believe that even the limited, properly understood BoD, is heretical ... since the Church has always allowed the opinion. In fact, I consider that view to be schismatic. But, as per my previous post, the BoDer crusade isn't about the occasional catechumen who MIGHT be saved, but about undermining EENS. Just as there's no guaranteed that ANYONE who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, so there's no guarantee that any catechumen who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, just that the Church leave it open as a possibility in the pastoral context. There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by BoD or that God would will any of His elect to be saved by this means when it's easily possible for Him to bring the Sacrament to any of His elect. I see BoD as speculative theology for which there's no actual or practical need and for which there's no actual proof.
So, if you want to believe that some catechumen or other who died without Baptism (which probably happens once in a blue moon) MIGHT be saved via BoD, then more power to you. But when people start talking about Great Thumb worshippers being saved via some distorted "BoD", that's when I have problems with you, and the Doctors of the Church are all ON MY SIDE on this matter, as is the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, once you start extending salvation to non-Catholics, you've got all of Vatican II in a nutshell, and LoT and Ambrose, who hold the same ecclesiology as Vatican II, are schismatic for rejecting Vatican II, since they have nothing to stand on.
Yes I did notice that, and wasn't baiting you with the question as I was only referring to catechumens in light of your BOD formulation in the original post of this thread. I don't know if dismissing it as simply a pastoral provision is sufficient insofar as it would seem to be an evil law (from your vantage point) as it's fanning the flame of doctrinal error at the very least. How do you personally square this away, as it seems analagous to what you accuse (I believe quite rightly) those who reject the Church's universal laws of doing?
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Again, the following references are available to anyone who is honestly interested in the topic for discussion.
The confusion regarding Ven. Pius IX's Tuas Libenter arises from forgetting that there are two quite distinct quotes referring to two different aspects of doctrine. The first relates to "theological truths and conclusions" but not to dogma.
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
The second relates to dogmas taught by the ordinary universal magisterium.
“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.
St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers did not get something wrong, and state that it was "certain," universally for hundreds of years. If you think this happened, please cite your evidence.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Thank you for posting this, I found these links very helpful !
It is you, and you alone, that continues to maintain the misunderstanding.Quote from: John LaneThe confusion regarding Ven. Pius IX's Tuas Libenter arises from forgetting that there are two quite distinct quotes referring to two different aspects of doctrine. The first relates to "theological truths and conclusions" but not to dogma.
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
The second relates to dogmas taught by the ordinary universal magisterium.
“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.
St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers did not get something wrong, and state that it was "certain," universally for hundreds of years. If you think this happened, please cite your evidence.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: Rev. Anthony Cekada"All Catholics are obliged to adhere to the common teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. According to the norms outlined above, the Feeneyite position represents either theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy."
"Those Catholics who adhere to the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire and baptism of blood commit a mortal sin against the faith."
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
I would urge all Feeneyites to read the above link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf). It is a complete defense of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issue.
Additional information is available in Bishop Donald Sanborn's four part
Anti-Feeneyite Catechism available at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary website articles (http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html).
There is also an interesting exchange (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2) between a representative of the SBC and Rev. Anthony Cekada at
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
Thank you for posting this, I found these links very helpful !
Edited to add:
I thought this quote from Fr Cekada worth noting in these 'wild west' times.
E.
*
Private Interpretation of Magisterial Pronouncements.
*
“I think the infallible pronouncements of the Church are all pretty clear.
I don’t need ‘interpretations’ or explanations from theologians. I just
take everything literally.”
•
Response:
Do it yourself interpretations and explanation of
texts are for Protestants, not Catholics. Theology is a science which
operates under the watchful eye of the Church, not a free for all for every Catholic with an English translation of Denziger. Like any
other science, theology operates according to recognized and objective criteria which experts use to arrive at the truth about various
propositions. So, if you are not trained in the science, you have no business coming up with your own interpretations for the pronouncements of the magisterium. At best, you’ll end up looking ignorant; at worst, you’ll end up a heretic.
Whoa, major copy/paste snafu, I tried to clean the quote up as best I could.
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.
Have you read the Fr. Cekada link you posted?
Quote from: StubbornHave you read the Fr. Cekada link you posted?
Yes, I read the link, http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf, and the follow-up exchange http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
I enjoyed them, and found them edifying.
You, on the other hand, repulse me, your words are so contrary to the Catholic fabric that I wonder how I will ever manage to get the stains out.
1) opinion
2) false
3) does not apply
4) does not apply
5) opinion
6) false
7) no thank you
1) opinion
2) false
3) does not apply
4) does not apply
5) opinion
6) false
7) no thank you
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o' and 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.'"
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie1) opinion
2) false
3) does not apply
4) does not apply
5) opinion
6) false
7) no thank you
You are in denial, you may as well follow him into the pit with a smile on your face the whole way.
1. Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
2. St. Alphonsus Liguori 1691-1787
Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o' and 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.'"
I have no doubt that the Dimond brothers will not fail to slander me when it suits them. They have done so in the past, and I am quite sure they will continue to do so. They are liars, and it seems that they continue in their evil ways.
It is rather laughable that an encyclical regarding Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ would be used to support the teaching of Baptism of Desire when there are ample references from authorities in the Church on the topic, and it is not surprising that they would somehow attribute this to me.
Two fake monks, clowns in this circus that they have created. I can still recall when they thought they were the two witnesses - what a joke these clowns are. Circus clowns to the end. Pride has warped their reality into a sideshow.
It was St. Alphonsus Liguori who identifies Baptism of Desire as 'Of the Faith',
Quote"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o' and 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.'"
I stand 100% with the Church. Two pretend monks have no sway over me at all. It amuses me that this very topic, Baptism of Desire, was the argument that caused me to discontinue helping them in the past, and here now I see they continue to push their distortion of truth. I wonder if they ever corrected their misrepresentations, although, I highly doubt it.
And you, LouisM, now you are the same as them to me. I hope you enjoy their company. Maybe you too can join their ranks and play monk.
The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire
"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Quote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.
Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.
Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.
Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.
Actually, for my own reassurance and edification, I re-read the section on Baptism contained in The Catechism of The Council of Trent, thinking that if I was mistaken in my understanding of this topic, I might find some clarification there. Now, while I was reassured that God, in His infinite justice, would not allow the circuмstances of an untimely death to prevent someone from suffering the eternal fires of hell who had "repentance for past sins" and the "intention and determination to receive Baptism", reading further, I also gained some insight into another interpretation of the Council's decree that is perhaps a primary influence to those that oppose Baptism of Desire.
I am not going to debate this topic.
You are right to not debate it. They need correction, not debate. Also, we need to expose this heresy, so that no one else gets ensnared.
They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.
Quote from: AmbroseThey prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.
You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbroseThey prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.
You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.
Don't get a job at Hallmark.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbroseThey prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.
You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.
Don't get a job at Hallmark.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbroseThey prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics.
You've always been a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, Ambrose.
Don't get a job at Hallmark.
I should trademark that quote; it would actually make for a good card. They have those Demotivator posters to mock the Motivational Posters. I should create a line of Negative Greeting Cards :laugh1:
You stand up here constantly proclaiming how much YOU love the Catholic truth, how much you LOVE the papacy, and beat your chest like the Pharisee, thanking God that you are not like these others, yada yada yada. Perhaps you take yourself just a little bit too seriously and think too highly of yourself, no? We're having a theological dispute and have a disagreement about WHAT the Church actually teaches. You make these outrageous statements about how you love the Church more, and we hate the Church, etc. because we disagree on the WHAT of the Church teaches. Please gives us a break from constantly proclaiming your own virtue and at the same time hurling insults against your opponents.
Laudislaus you are welcome to your opinion but it is unfounded.
Once again completely ignoring my proof that the Holy Office, of the Catholic Church, officially has allowed priests to say Mass privately for a non-Catholic if good-will was perceived up until death.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: NadoOnce again completely ignoring my proof that the Holy Office, of the Catholic Church, officially has allowed priests to say Mass privately for a non-Catholic if good-will was perceived up until death.
Post your "proof", Pelagian.
Catholic Encyclopedia, SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
"For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceased catechumens is permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire of Baptism and are in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in purgatory. For further details see Göpfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906)."
Joseph Pohle
Quote from: LadislausAs I suspected, the Holy Office did NOT say a priest could offer Mass privately for a deceased Jew or infidel. That's added by Pohle and some other loser he cites. Holy Office said that Mass could be offered privately for a HERETIC only if there was good reason to assume good faith. Heretics are by definition baptized.
That's why I wanted to see the quote. Typical Nado lie, attributing the Jew part to the Holy Office.
Ladislaus didn't see the actual legislation, yet he personally determines that the respectable theologian got it wrong.
Arrogant. Wrong. Expected of a heretic Feeneyite.
I trust the author/theologian.
Once you see the actual legislation referenced, then you can legitimately comment.
And when you mention that Pohle cited some "other loser". Why do you say he is a loser other than he doesn't agree with you?
It would be abnormal to not assume that a theologian such as Pohle would risk his reputation by inventing something for other clergy to practice ...
Quote from: NadoAnd when you mention that Pohle cited some "other loser". Why do you say he is a loser other than he doesn't agree with you?
It has nothing to do with whether he agrees with ME. He blatantly rejects the Church dogma EENS. That dogma has been under attack since the 1600s at the instigation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and most of the 19th and 20th century theologians don't believe in EENS anymore. Most of them are Pelagian heretics just like yourself. Pius IX in the mid 19th century had to condemn several times the growing religious indifferentism among Catholics even in his day, and it's only gained momentum since then.
Laudislaus it would appear that this argument is not about the proper interpretation of extra ecclesia nullus salus but rather the church teaching of indefectibility. When can you date when all theologians, schools of thought, adopted the Pelagian heresy?
Do you understand, Ladislaus, that no minority opinion of theologians would be allowed if it were against a previously solemnly defined dogma?
I know it is redundant for me to say, but.....Do you understand that?
Quote from: LadislausYou're attempting to make up a principle that doesn't exist.
For 1600 years the "Majority Opinion" was taught and believed by everywhere and by all; if that doesn't make it part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then I don't know what does.
But here's your epic fail.
EITHER the Majority Opinion is true OR the Minority Opinion is true. If the minority opinion is true (i.e. not an error), then the Church tolerated the erroneous majority opinion for, say, 1950 years (as it was still widely held in the 1950s). So then the Church failed on your made-up "passive infallibility" there.
THIS DOES NOT EXIST. There are simply things that the Church CHOOSES not to pass judgment on for one reason or another. There have been MANY such disputes on which the Church has decided not to pass judgment, perhaps the most famous of which involves the Dominicans vs. Jesuits on grace and free will. In fact, the Dominicans / Thomists rightly accused the Dominicans / Jesuits of (at least a very mild form of) Pelagianism. And it was application of this incipient Jesuit Pelagianism that eventually led to the full-blown Pelagianism and rejection of EENS that we see today. Your yourself are a (willing) victim of this. Jesuits accused the Thomists of being Calvinists. But the Church decided NOT to intervene at that time. IMO this was a huge mistake. But God allowed it because it would set in motion a series of developments that would lead to this modern-day testing of the faith and sifting of the faithful. Be very afraid, Nado, lest you be among those sifted out.
First of all, you need to make up you mind whether you want to respond to me or not. You keep saying you are won't but don't stick with it. I personally don't care either way.
What you Feeneyites get wrong big-time is that when something is taught publicly for hundreds of years to the public (not just among theologians), and you can't find anything which directly and explicitly says that something is against dogma....then it is not. You are simply in denial over this irrefutable historical fact because you don't understand what "holy" means as far as the divine Catholic Church goes.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Nado
What you Feeneyites get wrong big-time is that when something is taught publicly for hundreds of years to the public (not just among theologians), and you can't find anything which directly and explicitly says that something is against dogma....then it is not. You are simply in denial over this irrefutable historical fact because you don't understand what "holy" means as far as the divine Catholic Church goes.
Such is the typicalreasoningrambling of a non-Catholic.
The brain is known to see rambling where there is not, if the person hosting that brain is in denial.
Just a few days ago you said 1949 was the date things started to get bad, now you are going back a few more generations. Ladislaus said it was the 1600's!
Your attitude is making people step off the narrow path.
Quote from: LadislausNado's fake "passive infallibility" argument again.
I have about 6 quotes from imprimatured Catholic works that I already published here, and they range from the early 19th to the 20th century, all by different authors.
Not surprising the Ladislaus is arrogant enough to call the teaching fake.
Quote from: LadislausYou still have addressed exactly NONE of my objections. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again like a broken record. You are indeed a bad-willed heretic.
Now I have to say what I just said to Cant. Are you a liar, have a horrible memory, or a terrible comprehension? I sure have addressed your objections. Some time ago I have even challenged any of you Feeneyite heretics to a one-on-one and nobody accepted the challenge, but you still seem to want to dabble in conversation without the commitment. Very telling.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Nado
Your attitude is making people step off the narrow path.
More of your Cushingite NO philosophy.
FYI, preaching what the church infallibly teaches, ie that one must receive the sacrament of baptism for their hope of salvation, is what keeps them from attempting to be able to plead ignorance, something you are against, but be honest to yourself at least, no way does it make people step off the narrow path - if they are of good will, it can only make them strive to get on and stay on the narrow path, the ONLY path which leadeth to life for the few there are that find it.
You skirt one again that you are promoting an IMPOSSIBLE thing, against the divinity and holiness of the Church of Christ. You won't even argue it, you just go on tangents instead, like a mental case.
Quote from: Stubborn
What is there to skirt - your opinion? Because your opinion is contrary to de fide decrees, you are the one who skirts the truth and you skirt it in a similar manner in which you attempt to foolishly justify schism because you foolishly preach the pope is not the pope - as if you, of all people, would have a clue.
Like all heretics, you make dogma heresy and heresy dogma. I am of the opinion that the reason you do this is from your years in the conciliar church and the rest of the time you spend obsessing over your opinion of a Vacant Chair.
We know that few make it to heaven and the rest go to hell - but like all heretics, your philosophy has few going to hell and the rest, you have going to heaven. In your warped theology, the only ones who go to hell will be those who do the Catholic thing by defending the absolute necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church and the absolute necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
Can you see now how you make dogma heresy and heresy dogma?
Your heresy amounts to a corruption of the doctrines of the ordinary magisterium and the holiness and divinity of the Church. You paint a doctrinally IMPOSSIBLE picture. You won't touch it with a 10 foot pole, nor will the other Feeneyites. The common reply is something about "bad-will". Yucky!
“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor, God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
Quote from: CantarellaThe Americanists are determined to change the dogma on salvation. BOD was never relevant or an issue with EENS but the Americanists made it one and unfortunately today the Americanist error of invincible ignorance as an exception to EENS has spread throughout the Church as to become "Church teaching". The sedevacantists here in CI have elevated the concept into a DOGMA, which not even the conciliar popes have done.
Correct.
And if you go to a CMRI chapel and tell the priest that BoD is not doctrine, don't be at all surprised if he tells you that if you think that way, you're not Catholic, and that you'll have to find somewhere else for the sacraments, even if every church within 50 miles is NovusOrdo. I know this happens because I saw it happen.
The CMRI is filled apparently with Lovers of Error. (Not unlike CI threads, actually.)
.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: CantarellaThe Americanists are determined to change the dogma on salvation. BOD was never relevant or an issue with EENS but the Americanists made it one and unfortunately today the Americanist error of invincible ignorance as an exception to EENS has spread throughout the Church as to become "Church teaching". The sedevacantists here in CI have elevated the concept into a DOGMA, which not even the conciliar popes have done.
Correct.
And if you go to a CMRI chapel and tell the priest that BoD is not doctrine, don't be at all surprised if he tells you that if you think that way, you're not Catholic, and that you'll have to find somewhere else for the sacraments, even if every church within 50 miles is NovusOrdo. I know this happens because I saw it happen.
The CMRI is filled apparently with Lovers of Error. (Not unlike CI threads, actually.)
.
This is happening right now to a very, very good friend of mine. The family is practically being run out of the chapel. My friend is very stressed and has asked me for help. I don't know what to tell her.
And if you go to a CMRI chapel and tell the priest that BoD is not doctrine, don't be at all surprised if he tells you that if you think that way, you're not Catholic, and that you'll have to find somewhere else for the sacraments, even if every church within 50 miles is NovusOrdo. I know this happens because I saw it happen.
Quote from: CathMomof7And if you go to a CMRI chapel and tell the priest that BoD is not doctrine, don't be at all surprised if he tells you that if you think that way, you're not Catholic, and that you'll have to find somewhere else for the sacraments, even if every church within 50 miles is NovusOrdo. I know this happens because I saw it happen.
At my SSPX chapel there used to be a sedevacantist who did not believe in BOD or BOB. Even though the priest did not agree with these two beliefs and knew he held them he still considered the person to be a Catholic and let him receive the sacraments.
Quote from: CathMomof7Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: CantarellaThe Americanists are determined to change the dogma on salvation. BOD was never relevant or an issue with EENS but the Americanists made it one and unfortunately today the Americanist error of invincible ignorance as an exception to EENS has spread throughout the Church as to become "Church teaching". The sedevacantists here in CI have elevated the concept into a DOGMA, which not even the conciliar popes have done.
Correct.
And if you go to a CMRI chapel and tell the priest that BoD is not doctrine, don't be at all surprised if he tells you that if you think that way, you're not Catholic, and that you'll have to find somewhere else for the sacraments, even if every church within 50 miles is NovusOrdo. I know this happens because I saw it happen.
The CMRI is filled apparently with Lovers of Error. (Not unlike CI threads, actually.)
.
This is happening right now to a very, very good friend of mine. The family is practically being run out of the chapel. My friend is very stressed and has asked me for help. I don't know what to tell her.
Well, they could either look for a new chapel or just be quiet about this particular subject (prudence would sometimes dictate silence when you know it'll do more harm than good). Apart from that, it's hard to say anything with no details.
1 John 5:4-10 all that is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith. Who is here that overcomes the world if not he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He who came in water and in blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness that Christ is the truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: The Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of god which is greater, that He has borne witness concerning His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself.