Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences  (Read 98058 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #120 on: December 19, 2025, 08:58:20 AM »
A BOD Is salvation by faith alone.

So, that's a huge problem with BoD, as articulated by 99% of all BoDers.  Basically what the vast majority claim is an "ex opere operantis" salvation, where people can work out salvation on their own and without the Sacraments.

St. Robert Bellarmine recognized this problem and thus came up with the formula that one receives the Sacrament "in voto", not that one does not receive the Sacrament, since even in BoD you MUST say that the Sacrament remains at least the instrumental cause of justification, somehow.  Now that's a huge stretch, especially in case where people never heard of Baptism, i.e. for "implicit" desire, but at least it doens't contradict the necesity of the Sacrament for salvation.

Yet almost every single modern BoDer say that there can be substitutes for Baptism, and get sloppy and do not mean that there can be substitutes way of being justified by Baptism than via the actual reception of it with water.  That latter is what might be acceptable in the context of Trent, but almost NOBODY out there articulates it this way.

So the end result is that most are Pelagians and believe in self-justification and self-salvation.

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #121 on: December 19, 2025, 02:34:49 PM »
From Bread of Life:

Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means. This necessity is imposed on all men, including infants.

Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of both means and precept for adults, who are not yet baptized.

Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo. Notice, they do not go to Hell. Also notice, they do not go to Heaven.

Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell. Notice they do not go either to Limbo or to Heaven.

You reject "in voto" for baptism. Canon Law of 1917, that is "the Church" required a Mass for a catechumen's soul if he should die without the Sacrament which means the catechumen can go to purgatory and be saved with baptism by water. That's what the Church says, and YOU reject it.


Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #122 on: December 19, 2025, 02:37:53 PM »
Perhaps the only thing one might claim that isn't heretical, though you might be skating on thin ice ... is that after these infants are raised from the dead, they will be baptized right before the consummation of the world, similar to what many Church Fathers believe happened to the just in Limbo.  Certainly not revealed .. but then Limbo Infantium isn't revealed either, and I can't think of any doctrine / dogma it would violate to speculate along those lines.  If someone has a counter-point, I'm all ears, but I can't think of anything.  And one needn't redefine words like Salvation and Hell.

You could speculate that for those who are dying, God could bilocate some Catholic to baptize an individual, or send an angel to baptize, where just a tiny drop of water would suffice.  St. Cyprian said of his theory regarding the Baptism of Blood, that the martyrs were washed in their blood while angels pronounced the words.  God can pause time, provide an interior illumination of faith, bilocate some to the side of a dying person to baptize etc. etc.

There are a thousand ways you could speculate ... but WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY ARE LITERALLY HELL-BENT ON DENYING THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION.

We're taught about the Sacraments that they are necessary, by God's will, because we are both body and soul.  We're taught that we receive the character of Christ in our souls nad the DNA to become members of Christ's Body, and therefore to be saved.  This character or seal is not just a badge of honor or some non-repeatabiliity marker that some people in Heaven have and others do not.  It has some ontological importance, and that importance is that it actually gives the human soul the supernatural faculty that it lacks by nature, i.e. to see God as He is, supernaturally.

To what extent God works in an ordinary manner, to what he works in an extraordinary manner, we do not know ... but there's absolutely no reason to somehow claim that God is restricted by impossibilty.  He orchestrates in the most amazing and wonderful manner, by His Providence, who gets born where, to which parents, at what time and place, etc. ... so that if there's a reason that somoene was born among animists, this was not happenstance that God somehow must make exceptions for.  This is what St. Augustine, in rejecting BoD, complained about, where people gave all this power to accident and chance and happenstance ... almost as if they barely believed in God.

That's to say nothing of the fact that belief in BoD has saved absolutely no one.  As Father Feeney famously put it ... if anything it weakens any desire someone might have to be Baptized.  Just think about it.  If you believe firmly and without exception that you need the Sacrament in water to be saved ... how ardently you'd burn for it, and beg for it, every moment of every day, until you received it.  But if you have the attitude of "meh, BoD will save me."  Are you really even desiring Baptism anymore, or just the desire of Baptism.  There's no Baptism of the Desire of the Desire of Baptism.

It's just so idiotic, so faithless, where people who think thish way ... I have to wonder if they even believe in God, and His Providence.

You should accept the fact that the Church in canon law required a requiem Mass for the soul of an catachumen. This direct support salvation without water baptism.

Why are you rejecting this?


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #123 on: December 19, 2025, 02:40:06 PM »
You reject "in voto" for baptism. Canon Law of 1917, that is "the Church" required a Mass for a catechumen's soul if he should die without the Sacrament which means the catechumen can go to purgatory and be saved with baptism by water. That's what the Church says, and YOU reject it.
You reject St. Alphonsus' teaching. He says that only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary, and YOU reject it.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #124 on: December 19, 2025, 03:11:12 PM »
You reject St. Alphonsus' teaching. He says that only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary, and YOU reject it.

Well, he also said this:


Quote
Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.


https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/new-st-alphonsus-quotes-on-implicit-bod/


An infidel justified?

St. Alphonsus is a man. Some, like he and other doctors, etc., deserve more deference and carry greater weight in their opinions, but they are still but men, subject to the reason contained in their arguments.

This appears contradictory, or makes the sacramental "necessity" something other than you think it is, Stubborn, at least in St. Alphonsus's view.