The 'ol "Cekada scare tactic" :laugh1:
Here is something I wrote to a relative about 3 years ago. Feeneyites take note.St Alphonsus also talks about baptism of tears :facepalm: he was not infallible. Baptism of desire is emotional cope same with baptism of blood. Get over it.
The term "de fide" is a label theologians place on teachings (particularly for confessors to use). A teaching being labeled "de fide" means it is "of faith" so that if you were to deny it deliberately, it would mean that you would lose the divine virtue of Faith (which is what makes a heretic).
When someone commits ANY mortal sin, such as murder, they automatically lose the divine virtue of charity.
Someone who willingly denies a "de fide" teaching also commits a mortal sin, and not only loses the divine virtue of charity but ALSO that of divine faith.
Catechisms don't show these labels on teachings, because it is meant for confessors to know how to handle it. There are teachings in the catechisms that are not "de fide", but you can't tell which ones, because we are obliged to believe ALL, even that which is less than "de fide".
So, if someone denies a major teaching that is less than "de fide", he would NOT lose the divine virtue of faith, but he would still commit a mortal sin (losing the divine virtue of charity).
Feeneyites wrongly think if something is not "de fide", they are free and clear to reject it without any consequences!
But, baptism of desire IS "de fide". St. Alphonsus says so written in his Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96:
"Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
The writings of St. Alphonsus were scrutinized by the Church, when he was beatified, again when he was canonized, and again when he was declared a Doctor of the Church. Approved. He is also consider THE moral theologian. His books were followed by clergy so that in the confessional they would advise any penitent who denied baptism of desire that they must believe it as true or else cease to be Catholic.
St. Alphonsus, and the Church approving, could not have made a mistake.
St Alphonsus also talks about baptism of tears :facepalm: he was not infallible. Baptism of desire is emotional cope same with baptism of blood. Get over it.
Sounds like you didn't even read it. And if you did, didn't comprehend it.Baptism of desire is a false doctrine that has contributed to the current crisis. The Church has never taught it ans even has infallible statements that block the possibility of it (Pope Siricius).
Baptism of desire is a false doctrine that has contributed to the current crisis. The Church has never taught it ans even has infallible statements that block the possibility of it (Pope Siricius).
Hey! That's what non-Catholic says about Catholics!
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
Here is something I wrote to a relative about 3 years ago. Feeneyites take note.
The term "de fide" is a label theologians place on teachings (particularly for confessors to use). A teaching being labeled "de fide" means it is "of faith" so that if you were to deny it deliberately, it would mean that you would lose the divine virtue of Faith (which is what makes a heretic).
When someone commits ANY mortal sin, such as murder, they automatically lose the divine virtue of charity.
Someone who willingly denies a "de fide" teaching also commits a mortal sin, and not only loses the divine virtue of charity but ALSO that of divine faith.
Catechisms don't show these labels on teachings, because it is meant for confessors to know how to handle it. There are teachings in the catechisms that are not "de fide", but you can't tell which ones, because we are obliged to believe ALL, even that which is less than "de fide".
So, if someone denies a major teaching that is less than "de fide", he would NOT lose the divine virtue of faith, but he would still commit a mortal sin (losing the divine virtue of charity).
Feeneyites wrongly think if something is not "de fide", they are free and clear to reject it without any consequences!
But, baptism of desire IS "de fide". St. Alphonsus says so written in his Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96:
"Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
The writings of St. Alphonsus were scrutinized by the Church, when he was beatified, again when he was canonized, and again when he was declared a Doctor of the Church. Approved. He is also consider THE moral theologian. His books were followed by clergy so that in the confessional they would advise any penitent who denied baptism of desire that they must believe it as true or else cease to be Catholic.
St. Alphonsus, and the Church approving, could not have made a mistake.
Trent teaches:
Trent:
In those who are "born again" there is "nothing God hates", they are made "innocent, Immaculate, pure, guiltless[...]in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven"
But St. Alphonsus says BOD does not remove "all debt of punishment''
It follows that one who receives "BOD" is not born again, because they have not received remission of all punishment due to sin. That is "something" (as opposed to Trent's: "absolutely nothing") that will delay them from entry into heaven. And as Trent teaches, if you're not born again, you can never be justified... :confused:
I used to use this argument too, but there are some theologians who hold BOD to not be de fide but a lesser theological note. Even those theologians who do hold BOD to be of a lesser qualification still consider it’s denial to be a mortal sin. So, all of those people who deny BOD are, at the very least, guilty of mortal sin as there are no theologians, post Trent, who support their position.
Some may argue that theologians aren’t part of the teaching Church, but this can’t stand since some of them are bishops and even Doctors of the Church, as in the case of Saint Alphonsus, thus part of the Church teaching. Also, the theologians writing post Trent were approved by the Church and Her popes and none have been corrected, let alone censured, for teaching what Trent taught about BOD.
So, you are claiming St. Alphonsus taught against a previously defined solemn dogma?Is St Gregory nαzιanzun (THE THEOLOGIAN) a heretic because he denied Baptism of desire?
Do you know that going to purgatory means being saved eternally? That aspect has nothing to do with the OP.
Is St Gregory nαzιanzun (THE THEOLOGIAN) a heretic because he denied Baptism of desire?
Trent teaches: If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven
Trent teaches: But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ they would never be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
St. Alphonsus says: "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"
So these people St. Alphonsus is speaking of are not "born again" through BOD, according to Trent. There is "something" (debt of punishment) that delays them from entry into Heaven. But Trent teaches that unless you are "born again" you would "never be justified".
:confused:
Born again, means sanctifyig grace. I am taking about "de fide", not aspects of the teaching.But that was St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, right? That it was he held to be "de fide"?
Do you even know what a theological note is? :facepalm:
(https://i.imgur.com/LH2XDTv.png)
To flat out reject it as an opinion COULD be considered rash, temerious.
BUT there are REASONS people are confused about this. (hint) IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP!
Nobody needs you telling them they will burn in hell because they don't hold BOD at the same level of theological note that either you or St. Alphonsus did.
This ISN'T EVEN REMOTELY similar to the arguments of the SVs which are made to DEFEND dogmas.
Why were the BOD opinions developed as a theological opinion in the first place - go look it up.
Freind, believe it or not, I am actually trying to be your friend.
But you are making it hard :fryingpan:
You insult me, by creating stupid threads, which should never exist.
If you just did you homework or asked questions instead of shooting your mouth off - that would be better.
Everybody has at least one good thing to share - but for you - this ain't it.
If you keep at this your going to get shredded.
You are NOT up to the task - so just quite while you can.
The only ones who promote a BOD are already baptized. If anyone can post proof of an unbaptized person promoting it, please post it.
But that was St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, right? That it was he held to be "de fide"?
Are you suggesting St. Alphonsus called into question a previously solemnly defined dogma?Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting St. Alphonsus knowingly taught something that was contrary to Trent?
Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting St. Alphonsus knowingly taught something that was contrary to Trent?
If you can reconcile what Trent teaches with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, by all means go ahead. I am willing to learn
I am asking whether you think he objectively did or not.Really means that much to you, huh?
The One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church promotes it, in the name of Jesus Christ. You can't even say yes to the truth that the same Church gave us the New Testament Scriptures!The One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church promotes St. Paul's infallible teaching to the Ephesians: "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."
Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting St. Alphonsus knowingly taught something that was contrary to Trent?The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4 states:
If you can reconcile what Trent teaches with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, by all means go ahead. I am willing to learn
[CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.[
11. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."
12. 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 (necessitate Medii) 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 ( in voto)
Really means that much to you, huh?
If you can reconcile what Trent teaches with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, by all means go ahead. I am willing to learn
Really means that much to you, huh?
If you can reconcile what Trent teaches with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, by all means go ahead. I am willing to learn
The One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church promotes St. Paul's infallible teaching to the Ephesians: "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."
The only ones who promote a BOD are already baptized. If anyone can post proof of an unbaptized person promoting it, please post it.
So glad you are ready to learn.
Baptism of Desire occurs either by an explicit desire to receive the Sacrament (as in a Catechumen) or an implicit desire contained in a resolve to fulfill God’s will (as in the Invincibly Ignorant).
Once this desire is formed—provided it is animated by Perfect Charity (love of God above all things) and Perfect Contrition—the soul is justified by God's Grace immediately, even before the physical reception of the Sacrament.
This is exactly analogous to the doctrine of Perfect Contrition, where a penitent is absolved of sin before entering the confessional, precisely because their contrition includes the resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as possible."
So glad you are ready to learn.Thank you, but this is not applicable to what I was referring to: St. Alphonsus' definition (some debt of punishment remains) & what Trent taught regarding those who are "born again", and how one could never be "justified" if he is not "born again"
Baptism of Desire occurs either by an explicit desire to receive the Sacrament (as in a Catechumen) or an implicit desire contained in a resolve to fulfill God’s will (as in the Invincibly Ignorant).
Once this desire is formed—provided it is animated by Perfect Charity (love of God above all things) and Perfect Contrition—the soul is justified by God's Grace immediately, even before the physical reception of the Sacrament.
This is exactly analogous to the doctrine of Perfect Contrition, where a penitent is absolved of sin before entering the confessional, precisely because their contrition includes the resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as possible."
You can't reconcile it? Which means you think it doubts previously defined solemn dogma? Please answer what you think.Huh? What needs to be reconciled?
Huh? What needs to be reconciled?
Please, just speak, "Yea, yea, neah, neah" as the Scripture tells us. Do you think St. Alphonsus called into doubt with his wording a previously declared solemn dogma?I never feel compelled to answer ridiculous questions
I never feel compelled to answer ridiculous questions
You're in the "Feeneyite Ghetto". You do know what we "Feeneyites" believe, right?
My invitation stands :incense:
Thank you, but this is not applicable to what I was referring to: St. Alphonsus' definition (some debt of punishment remains) & what Trent taught regarding those who are "born again", and how one could never be "justified" if he is not "born again"
"Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins... but also the sacramental confession of the said sins... and satisfaction also...
For we are not to believe that the guilt is remitted in such wise as that the whole penalty of eternal punishment is [always] blotted out, as happens in baptism."
| Feature | Initial Justification (Baptism) | Restoration (Penance/Second Plank) |
| State of Soul | Cleansed of Original Sin. | Restored from Personal Mortal Sin. |
| Eternal Guilt | Remitted. | Remitted. |
| Temporal Debt | Remitted entirely (In Baptism). | Remains (Requiring Satisfaction/Purgatory). |
| Analogy | A complete cancellation of all debt and a new birth. | A healing of a wound that leaves a scar requiring therapy. |
Feeneyism is a mystery to me. Please answer my question so I know solidly what I am dealing with.Feel free to browse the ghetto
The effect of Justification is described in the Trent Decree on Justification as happening at two points:I am referring specifically to Trent's description of the man "born again", what Trent taught happens if one is not "born again' (never could be "justified"), and how St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD fits in with it
Here is the explanation by Gemini AI:
The Council of Trent draws a sharp distinction between the effects of Initial Justification (associated with Baptism) and Restoration (associated with Penance/Confession).
The crucial difference lies indeed in the Temporal Debt (Temporal Punishment).
Here is the breakdown based on the Council of Trent, Session VI.
1. Initial Justification (The First Plank)
This refers to the transition from being a child of Adam to a child of God.
The Means: The Sacrament of Baptism (or the votum for it animated by Perfect Charity).
The Effect (Sacramental): It removes Original Sin, Actual Sin, and All Temporal Punishment.
- If a person dies immediately after Baptism, they go straight to Heaven; there is no Purgatory.
The Effect (Baptism of Desire): It removes Original and Actual Sin (Guilt).
- Nuance: Theologians (like St. Thomas Aquinas) teach that while the Sacrament removes all temporal debt automatically (ex opere operato), the Desire removes temporal debt in proportion to the intensity of the contrition/charity. It is possible for some temporal debt to remain if the act of charity wasn't sufficiently intense.
2. Subsequent Justification (The Second Plank)
This refers to the restoration of a believer who has fallen into mortal sin after Baptism. Trent calls this "The Second Plank after Shipwreck."
The Means: The Sacrament of Penance (Confession) or Perfect Contrition (with the intent to confess).
- The Effect: It removes Eternal Punishment (Hell) and restores Sanctifying Grace.
- The Limitation: It does NOT necessarily remove all Temporal Punishment.
- This is why the Church prescribes Penance (Satisfaction) and why Purgatory exists. The guilt is gone, but the "mess" left behind (the disorder of the soul and the debt of justice) must still be paid.
Magisterial Citation (The Proof)
The Council of Trent explicitly addresses your point in Session VI, Chapter 14 ("On the Fallen and their Restoration"):
Summary Table
Feature Initial Justification (Baptism) Restoration (Penance/Second Plank) State of Soul Cleansed of Original Sin. Restored from Personal Mortal Sin. Eternal Guilt Remitted. Remitted. Temporal Debt Remitted entirely (In Baptism). Remains (Requiring Satisfaction/Purgatory). Analogy A complete cancellation of all debt and a new birth. A healing of a wound that leaves a scar requiring therapy.
So, the "second desire" (Restoration/Perfect Contrition after falling) remits the guilt of mortal sin but generally leaves the Temporal Debt to be satisfied. This validates the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the necessity of penance.
Feel free to browse the ghetto
Tell me what is ridiculous about my question.Take a walk through the Ghetto and you'll find out soon enough!
Take a walk through the Ghetto and you'll find out soon enough!
I am referring specifically to Trent's description of the man "born again", what Trent taught happens if one is not "born again' (never could be "justified"), and how St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD fits in with itDid you notice this in my previous post?
"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...
"Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism... 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' (1 Corinthians 3:15).
"And then, if fully purged, he becomes worthy of eternal life."
"Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment."
Here is something I wrote to a relative about 3 years ago. Feeneyites take note.
Did you notice this in my previous post?
Are you suggesting St. Alphonsus called into question a previously solemnly defined dogma?
The same Church promotes what St. Paul said AND baptism of desire. The divine Church promotes both. Why don't you accept both?Nope, only those who are already baptized promote a BOD. You will never produce a quote from one not yet baptized promoting the thing.
Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly de fide, since it's been defined. There's no definition ever of BoD.
So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do. Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.
Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.
St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task. Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was de fide.
But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?
Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce. Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum. "Feeneyites" believe this. They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.
Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.
So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.
Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron. None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.
And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.
You seem to be under the impression that we are attacking the distinction between Justification and Salvation.
No, you keep missing the points of various arguments.
OP accuses "Feeneyites" of "heresy" based on St. Alphonsus' criteria, where he says BoD is taught by Trent (that other docuмent being separate), but I'm focused on Trent here.
Let's see what Trent teaches. Justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum.
But Feeeneyites agree with this (the Dimondite perspective puts a different interpretation on the grammatical construction which IMO has much validity, but not relevant here, as he's attacking Feeneyites).
So Feeneyites do say there can be justification by votum, i.e. that so-called "Baptism of Desire" is, in their view, "Justification of Desire". At no point is the term "Baptism of Desire" used by any Magisterial sources.
If Trent teaches Justification of Desire (or JoD), and Feeneyites agree with it, then I ask OP where Feeneyites commit heresy by "rejecting Trent".
And if he attempts to claim that it's a bogus distinction, between justification and salvation, those terms are in fact distinct, and Melchior Cano, OP, approved and respected theologian writing after Trent, made that same distinction, applying it where infidels (those who believe in God but not the Holy Trinity and Incarnation) could be justified but not saved.
So ... OP needs to justify how "Feeneyites" heretically reject Trent. I've pointed this out to others who have made the charge of heresy ... and it's been crickets.
Nope, only those who are already baptized promote a BOD. You will never produce a quote from one not yet baptized promoting the thing.
Did you not read what St. Alphonsus said regarding The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4?
He said: "The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone."
A BOD is justification by faith alone, which is the heresy of Luther being condemned at Trent, here's you saying that a heresy is promoted by the Church.
That's absurd. That would be like saying, nobody who actually went to purgatory has declared there is a purgatory.You did not read what St. Alphonsus said regarding The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4?
The 'ol "Cekada scare tactic" :laugh1:
That's absurd. That would be like saying, nobody who actually went to purgatory has declared there is a purgatory.
While I have not the entirety of this stupid thread, he's likely referring to the fact that St. Alphonsus' explanation of BoD does in fact contradict Trent, AND, ironically, he contradicts a letter that's almost identical in authority to the one he cites for BoD as making it de fideYeah, I posted what St. Alphonsus taught and what Trent teaches to Friend several times. All he could come up with is the usual baloney: "are you saying St. Alphonsus denied a Dogma?!?" "Are you suggesting he called into question the teachings of Trent?!??"
St. Alphonsus cites Innocent II de presbytero non baptizato for one source making it de fide. Well, not only is the authenticity and authorship of it disputed, maybe Innocent II, maybe III, to some unknown bishop where, relying on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (mistakenly, and then not on the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, what's usually invoked when defining a doctrine with papal authority).
But then St. Alphonsus asserts that in BoD some temporal punishment usually remains and such a one would almost invariably end up in Purgatory. Well, irony of ironies, a letter by Innocent III, of an almost identical authority, a letter to a bishop, regarding an invalidly baptized Jews, says that his BoD powers would result in his rushing to heaven immediately and without delay, which contradicts St. Alphonsus' claim that they would normally be detained in Purgatory.
BUT ... what's more, St. Alphonsus contradicts Trent. Trent teaches that the initial justification at Baptism (vs. re-justification at Confession if one lost the state of grace) is in fact a rebirth (as Sacred Scripture teaches clearly in referring to the baptized being "born again"). But then Trent DEFINES "rebirth" as (which the name itself clearly implies) a complete restoration of the soul to innocence where not only no Original Sin or guilt of actual sin remains, but also not any temporal punishment due to sin, so that someone who died immediately after rebirth would in fact go immediately to Heaven without any delay ... similar to what Pope Innocent III said. So initial justification = a rebirth = a complete cleansing of sin and all punishment due to sin, which precludes any type of delay in Purgatory. Otherwise, those who are justified by BoD could never be said to be "born again" or enter into an initial justification. Trent explicitly states that there cannot be an initial justification without rebirth. So St. Alphonsus is claiming precisely what Trent denies, namely a justification that does not entail a rebirth.
So, St. Alphonsus contradicts BOTH of the authorities that he claimed made BoD de fide, both Trent and a papal letter by Innocent III (almost identical to the one he cited, and some sources believe Innocent III had written also the one St. Alphonsus cited, and not Innocent II).
You did not read what St. Alphonsus said regarding The Council of Trent, Session Seven, Sacraments in General, Canon 4?
He said: "The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone."
Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly de fide, since it's been defined. There's no definition ever of BoD.
So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do. Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.
Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.
St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task. Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was de fide.
But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?
Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce. Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum. "Feeneyites" believe this. They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.
Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.
So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.
Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron. None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.
And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.
So, I do see that you're around. I await your retraction regarding the false allegation of heresy.
Feeneyites believe in justification of desire, and the passage in Trent was about justification and salvation. Cano made the same distinction, holding that infidels could be justified but now saved.
So please explain where there's a heretical rejection of Trent.
Apparently I hit a nerve. You really did not address the OP. Telling.Would you like to discuss St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD and what Trent actually taught, or no?
You don't accept all the Church has given us to believe.You are wrong because yes I do, but obviously you do not accept what St. Alphonsus taught.
Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly de fide, since it's been defined. There's no definition ever of BoD.What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved? Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?
So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do. Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.
Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.
St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task. Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was de fide.
But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?
Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce. Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the votum. "Feeneyites" believe this. They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.
Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.
So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.
Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron. None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.
And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.
What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved? Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?
What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved? Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?
What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved? Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?Some propose a sort of "Limbo" for them, some say they go to purgatory and are therefore saved
Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood; and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot. Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin; and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony–Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the catholic church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity.
What would it mean if someone was justified and died justified but not saved? Would they go to Limbo, or something like that?
I have not read this entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned. This pertains to the query about dying justified, but not saved.
As stated, we do not know for certain. On this point, what do y'all think about the divinely-revealed statement that there will be a new heaven AND a new earth? Is it wild to think that someone who dies without sanctifying grace AND without any actual sin for which to atone might be an inhabitant of the new earth (a place of unending yet merely-natural happiness)?
If one cannot see the Face of God, but also is not deserving of a painful, everlasting banishment, where would they go? Limbo, as understood within the present reality (i.e., before everyone is resurrected), seems untenable where eternity is concerned.
If something along these lines is NOT the case, what purpose would an unpopulated new earth serve?
The divinely-revealed New Heaven and New Earth is a single place, not two different places [Apocalypse 21 and 22].
This is after the General Judgement. At that point there are only those living in the NHNE and those in Gehenna.
The Church's canon law recognizes that catechumens studying before entering the Church could die before baptism, and if they do, they are afforded a requiem Mass for their souls. This is an official recognition of baptism of desire. It means they could have gone to purgatory, and the Mass is to help them get to heaven.
So, ONE place but TWO distinct names/places/words? Are the old heaven and the old earth ONE? No. Why should the new ones be so? Two places, two distinct words.
Let's say you are correct, what happens to the billions of aborted babies, for example, who cannot see God in the Face nor can be justifiably buried in hell for all eternity? FWIW, this is not intended to be a gotcha question or meaningless subject. Where do you think they go? Are they living within the NHNE, but unable to see God in the Face, living a happy life but not united to Him via sanctifying grace? Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts.
So, ONE place but TWO distinct names/places/words? Are the old heaven and the old earth ONE? No. Why should the new ones be so? Two places, two distinct words.
Let's say you are correct, what happens to the billions of aborted babies, for example, who cannot see God in the Face nor can be justifiably buried in hell for all eternity? FWIW, this is not intended to be a gotcha question or meaningless subject. Where do you think they go? Are they living within the NHNE, but unable to see God in the Face, living a happy life but not united to Him via sanctifying grace? Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli
“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.
Apparently I hit a nerve. You really did not address the OP. Telling.
Here is something I wrote to a relative about 3 years ago. Feeneyites take note.
The term "de fide" is a label theologians place on teachings (particularly for confessors to use). A teaching being labeled "de fide" means it is "of faith" so that if you were to deny it deliberately, it would mean that you would lose the divine virtue of Faith (which is what makes a heretic).
When someone commits ANY mortal sin, such as murder, they automatically lose the divine virtue of charity.
Someone who willingly denies a "de fide" teaching also commits a mortal sin, and not only loses the divine virtue of charity but ALSO that of divine faith.
Catechisms don't show these labels on teachings, because it is meant for confessors to know how to handle it. There are teachings in the catechisms that are not "de fide", but you can't tell which ones, because we are obliged to believe ALL, even that which is less than "de fide".
So, if someone denies a major teaching that is less than "de fide", he would NOT lose the divine virtue of faith, but he would still commit a mortal sin (losing the divine virtue of charity).
Feeneyites wrongly think if something is not "de fide", they are free and clear to reject it without any consequences!
But, baptism of desire IS "de fide". St. Alphonsus says so written in his Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96:
"Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
The writings of St. Alphonsus were scrutinized by the Church, when he was beatified, again when he was canonized, and again when he was declared a Doctor of the Church. Approved. He is also consider THE moral theologian. His books were followed by clergy so that in the confessional they would advise any penitent who denied baptism of desire that they must believe it as true or else cease to be Catholic.
St. Alphonsus, and the Church approving, could not have made a mistake.
The "punishment" of those infants would be deprivation of the beatific vision, but no real suffering. I can't recall if that is just theory or if there are Magisterial statements directly supporting that.
So, a resurrected man whose only "infraction" is original sin, has an immortal body and soul that will not be separated throughout eternity, and spends eternity WHERE, in what 3-D region? Under the earth, in darkness, but sans fire? What sort of existence is that? How would such a life NOT be a disproportionate punishment?
Additionally, are the new heaven AND new earth -- two distinct words joined by AND, which actually intensifies any indication of TWO distinct things -- one place or two? What is the point of a new, unpopulated earth? Presumably ALL who are saved will be in the new heaven, no? So who, if anyone, is on earth at this point?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli
“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.
I recall there being Magisterial statements that Limbo is part of hell. Of course, hell with be there for eternity.
This I do remember with ability to point to the source:
The "punishment" of those infants would be deprivation of the beatific vision, but no real suffering. I can't recall if that is just theory or if there are Magisterial statements directly supporting that.
If you are asking me where Limbo is . . .
I think that people have to be very careful of English translations, especially where the word "hell" tends to translate "infer(n)us", as it does in this decree, just like the Creed using the same word for the Limbo Patrum, bosom of Abraham. It just means an area below relative to the Kingdom. Gahenna or other similar terms have been used to describe the place of punishment. With regard to the expression that they are to be punished disparately, that could also include 0 punishment. In fact, the Latin word there unequal, disparibus suggest a duality, as in, being in two different categories, between those in actual sin vs. those in original sin. I think it's just saying that "neither one of them can make it to heaven, and what awaits those guilty of actual sin vs. original only are not even in the same category (disparibus). No one has ever read this as any kind of definitive condemnation of Limbo.
I'll leave that to the Latinists. I'm just quoting Denzinger.
I asked what I asked. If you'd rather not share your own actual thoughts on the matter, that is perfectly fine. Thank you all the same.
After the General Judgment, the aborted babies will live in the new Paradise, the NHNE. They, along with everyone else in the NHNE, will see God's face, as Apocalypse 22:4 says.
The various Limbos are temporary abodes. The pre-General Judgement, disembodied beatific vision is also a temporary abode of the disembodied Saints. Those abodes only exist until the Second Coming/General Judgement/NHNE. Then after the GJ, those souls are united with their glorified bodies. Then all things are made "new." This is the eschatological telos of Christianity.
And at the GJ, the reprobate souls are united with their bodies and cast into everlasting Hell.
Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence
6. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.
Condemned proposition of John Wyclif at Council of Constance
If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent
So, a resurrected man whose only "infraction" is original sin, has an immortal body and soul that will not be separated throughout eternity, and spends eternity WHERE, in what 3-D region? Under the earth, in darkness, but sans fire? What sort of existence is that? How would such a life NOT be a disproportionate punishment?
Additionally, are the new heaven AND new earth -- two distinct words joined by AND, which actually intensifies any indication of TWO distinct things -- one place or two? What is the point of a new, unpopulated earth? Presumably ALL who are saved will be in the new heaven, no? So who, if anyone, is on earth at this point?
Quote
After the General Judgment, the aborted babies will live in the new Paradise, the NHNE. They, along with everyone else in the NHNE, will see God's face, as Apocalypse 22:4 says.
The various Limbos are temporary abodes. The pre-General Judgement, disembodied beatific vision is also a temporary abode of the disembodied Saints. Those abodes only exist until the Second Coming/General Judgement/NHNE. Then after the GJ, those souls are united with their glorified bodies. Then all things are made "new." This is the eschatological telos of Christianity.
And at the GJ, the reprobate souls are united with their bodies and cast into everlasting Hell.
Quote Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence
Quote 6. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.
Condemned proposition of John Wyclif at Council of Constance
Quote If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent
So, a resurrected man whose only "infraction" is original sin, has an immortal body and soul that will not be separated throughout eternity, and spends eternity WHERE, in what 3-D region? Under the earth, in darkness, but sans fire? What sort of existence is that? How would such a life NOT be a disproportionate punishment?
Additionally, are the new heaven AND new earth -- two distinct words joined by AND, which actually intensifies any indication of TWO distinct things -- one place or two? What is the point of a new, unpopulated earth? Presumably ALL who are saved will be in the new heaven, no? So who, if anyone, is on earth at this point?
The unbaptized baby's SOUL will go to the limbo of the Children. They are not "saved," meaning they do not immediately enter the beatific vision as disembodied souls.
The unbaptized baby's SOUL will go to the limbo of the Children. They are not "saved," meaning they do not immediately enter the beatific vision as disembodied souls.
False. At the very most, one might interpret it as the Church remains open on the matter, i.e. has not definitively condemned BoD. Prior discipline had the Church refusing Christian burial. Mass is that of Christian Burial, not just to get them to Heaven, and throughout the history of the Church catechumens were in this gray area, where they were permitted to be called Christian (thus Christian burial), but were not admitted to the Sacraments or to Mass.
C'mon, man. If you want to define "saved" or "salvation" in a way that has never been meant by the Church to get out of what is being taught...well, you can't do that, but ok
But I would like to see your explanation of Paul III's "eternal life"
He teaches that the infants need to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth [Sacrament of Baptism] to obtain "eternal life"
See, this comment here exposes the malicious liar ... as consistent with his pattern on other issues.
. . . .
So your OP is refuted thoroughly again, but you're a dishonest liar and will just claim it hadn't been and simply reiterate your lie.
You are wrong because yes I do, but obviously you do not accept what St. Alphonsus taught.
So let's say a baby dies shortly after Baptism. Does that baby go to the beatific vision as a disembodied soul?
Paul III said those who "incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life."
I did NOT say that unbaptized babies "incur no trace of the original sin." They certainly do incur Original Sin as the Church teaches. My position is that those unbaptized souls will eventually be let out of limbo and will have eternal life after the GJ. Just like the OT Fathers were released from the Limbo of the Father and entered the beatific vision at the Ascension.
The "eternal life" reference is just a restatement of the heretics who were claiming that the babies did not incur original sin and therefore would go directly into eternal life. That is not what I am saying. I say that go to Limbo until after the Second Coming when they will be re-united to their bodies.
If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema
Entire paragraph, again:
Do you deny that infants incur Original Sin? No, you profess that they do.
What you are denying is that Original Sin, which infants incur, needs to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life. That is part of what is being condemned here
You're just modifying the heresy by postponing the "eternal life" of unbaptized infants into the future, and not immediately.
Again, no I am not denying that Original Sin "needs to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life."
I am saying that the Rebirth that cleanses those infants is the rebirth that occurs at the resurrection of the Body.
Apocalypse 21:5
"And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true."
The things made new will include souls stained with Original Sin, which came not from any kind of deliberate fault of the infant, but was simply a constitutive feature of the prior epoch (saeculum), the Age after the Fall of Man.
After the Second Coming, there will be a new Epoch and a new world, called the NHNE.
It's not just "rebirth" :facepalm:
Trent Sess. 5 Ch. 4 (quoted above): "regenerationis lavacro"
Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 (description of the justification of the impious): "lavacro regenerationis"
The "laver of rebirth/regeneration" is the Sacrament of Baptism.
You are denying that the Original Sin which infants incur needs to be cleansed by the Sacrament of Baptism in order for them to attain eternal life
You are conflating the necessity of the means with the necessity of the grace.No, it's heresy because the Church has ruled out the possibility of infants attaining eternal life without the "laver of regeneration" (baptism). An infant cannot "desire" anything.
If we acknowledge that regeneration can occur via the votum (desire) for the sacrament—as established by the Council of Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4—then it is dogmatically certain that the physical Sacrament is not the exclusive instrument of cleansing in every possible circuмstance. If the votum suffices for the adult, we are discussing the power of God to apply the grace of the 'laver' outside the visible rite.
Regarding the "laver of regeneration" (lavacro regenerationis), you are interpreting this as strictly bound to water in time, whereas I am pointing to the Regeneration promised at the Resurrection. If these infants are to be united to a glorified body, that body and soul must be cleansed.
Furthermore, we have the historical precedent of the Old Testament Fathers. They certainly incurred Original Sin and remained in the Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers). They were not cleansed by the Sacrament of Baptism, which did not yet exist, yet they were truly regenerated and admitted to the Beatific Vision by Christ. This proves that God can, and has, applied the merits of the Passion to cleanse Original Sin through a 'rebirth' that is not the sacramental rite of water.
If God did this for the Fathers, it is not a "heresy" to suggest He can apply that same cleansing to infants at the "making of all things new" (Apocalypse 21:5).
We don't know ... as it's pure speculation.
Like Lad said, you might be able to posit that they can receive the "laver of regeneration" (The Sacrament of Baptism) when they are united with their bodies before the end of this world. That is the only possibility you can entertain without denying what the Church has taught us to believeAngelus, this is also possibly what you can apply to the "invincibly ignorant" in your NHNE hypothesis who fit Pius IX's terms (supposing that anyone at all who fits his description dies "invincibly ignorant")
Angelus, this is also possibly what you can apply to the "invincibly ignorant" in your NHNE hypothesis who fit Pius IX's terms (supposing that anyone at all who fits his description dies "invincibly ignorant")
I think, in theory, it does preserve EENS if you were to say that after their souls and bodies unite they receive Baptism before the end of this world
There are stories of Saints who actually raised the dead to life precisely so that they could be baptized..so there might be some precedent there
| Term | Latin Equivalent | Definition and Theological Function |
| Zoe (Eternal Life) | Aeternam Vitam | The Interior State of Grace (Spiritual Vitality). Accessible via "Divine Light." It secures the soul against Hell. |
| Soteria (Salvation) | Salvari | The Juridical Status of being "Rescued," clothed in the Baptismal Character, and granted immediate access to the Beatific Vision (BV). |
| The Debt of Nature | Poena Damni | The remaining spiritual deficit (lack of the Baptismal Character) after justification. Distinct from the guilt of sin. |
| Invincibly Ignorant | N/A | Persons who, through no fault of their own, adhere to the Natural Law and cooperate with sufficient grace. |
| Entity | State of Grace (Guilt) | Impediment (Debt) | Intermediate Destination |
| OT Fathers | Possessed Grace (Zoe). | Lacked the Cross. | Limbus Patrum |
| The Just Nations | Possess Grace (Zoe). | Lacks the Character. | Limbo of the Just |
Please take a look a the revised Monograph. I think it might clarify some things.Yeah I mean as long as the infants/invincibly ignorant have Original Sin remitted by the laver of regeneration prior to NHNE. I can see how that might work..but I do think it's quite the novel theory :incense:
Zoe, Soteria, and the Inviolable Necessity of the Church
A Re-examination of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in Light of the Magisterium of Pius IX
I. Formal Abstract
Scope: Speculative Dogmatic Theology / Ecclesiology
This monograph provides a rigorous scholastic reconciliation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with the Magisterium of Pope Pius IX regarding the Invincibly Ignorant. By recovering the linguistic and metaphysical distinction between Zoe (the internal state of justification/life) and Soteria (the juridical rescue and immediate entry into the Beatific Vision), the thesis identifies the Baptismal Character as the objective "Key" to the Light of Glory.
The work rejects the "Miracle Fallacy"—the necessity of a private revelation at death—proposing instead that the Invincibly Ignorant attain Zoe through an act of perfect charity fueled by "Divine Light," which includes an implicit votum (desire) for the Sacraments. However, lacking the objective Character, these souls incur a "Debt of Nature" and enter a New Covenant Limbo of the Just upon death, analogous to the Limbus Patrum. The final resolution is found eschatologically: at the General Resurrection, Christ the High Priest applies the "Laver of Regeneration" to all possessing Zoe, satisfying the debt and granting Soteria.
II. Introduction: The Standard of the "Upright Life"
According to the Magisterium of Pope Pius IX (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore), the Invincibly Ignorant may attain Eternal Life (Zoe) by "observing the precepts of the Natural Law" and living an "upright life." This thesis posits that this "upright life" is not a vague sincerity, but a rigorous adherence to the Primary Precepts of the Natural Law—those moral absolutes knowable by reason and essential for justice and the social order.
To maintain the state of grace (Zoe), the Invincibly Ignorant must remain free from Mortal Sins against the Natural Law, which include:
- Against God: Culpable Idolatry, Blasphemy, and the willful failure to seek the Truth.
- Against Life: Murder (The Blood of Abel), grave assault, and the oppression of the vulnerable (Widows and Orphans).
- Against Justice: Grave theft, defrauding the laborer of wages (Cry of the Oppressed), and malicious destruction of reputation (Calumny).
- Against Nature: Adultery (violating the justice of the bond), Sodomy, and the intentional frustration of the procreative end of the sɛҳuąƖ act.
While the Invincibly Ignorant are not bound by the Positive Laws of the Church (e.g., Mass attendance), the difficulty of maintaining this purity without sacramental medicine underscores the immense peril of being outside the Ark of the Church.
III. Prefatory Definitions: The Grammar of Eternity
Term Latin Equivalent Definition and Theological Function Zoe (Eternal Life) Aeternam Vitam The Interior State of Grace (Spiritual Vitality). Accessible via "Divine Light." It secures the soul against Hell. Soteria (Salvation) Salvari The Juridical Status of being "Rescued," clothed in the Baptismal Character, and granted immediate access to the Beatific Vision (BV). The Debt of Nature Poena Damni The remaining spiritual deficit (lack of the Baptismal Character) after justification. Distinct from the guilt of sin. Invincibly Ignorant N/A Persons who, through no fault of their own, adhere to the Natural Law and cooperate with sufficient grace.
IV. Part I: The "Pius IX Paradox" and the Miracle Fallacy
The core conflict arises from holding two absolute truths: the necessity of the visible Church (EENS) and the justice of God.
- The Exclusion: "Out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved [salvari]..." (Singulari Quadam)
- The Exception: "Able to attain eternal life [aeternam vitam] by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)
Rejecting the "Miracle Fallacy": Standard neo-scholastic theology often claims God sends an angel to baptize the Invincibly Ignorant at death. We reject this because it renders the Pope's statement redundant. The Pope's words only have force if we affirm that sufficient grace operates within the state of ignorance.
V. Part II: The Sacramental Economy and the Bar to Soteria
1. Justification vs. Purification: The Distinction of Debt
- Guilt Removed (Zoe Achieved): "Divine Light" facilitates an Act of Perfect Charity. In accordance with the Council of Trent, this act necessarily includes a subjective implicit desire (votum) to fulfill all that God requires. This removes the enmity with God.
- Debt Remains (Soteria Bar): The debt—the lack of the Baptismal Character—remains. This Character is the objective "Key" to the immediate Beatific Vision.
2. The Mechanism of Delay: Actual vs. Sanctifying Grace
The delay of the Beatific Vision is rooted in the nature of the grace received:
- Actual Grace: Facilitates the movement toward justification and the removal of the guilt of sin via the votum.
- Sanctifying Grace (The Habit): In the ordinary economy, the permanent "habit" and the Baptismal Character are the prerequisites for the Lumen Gloriae. Without the objective "Seal," the soul has the life of God but lacks the formal capacity for the Vision.
3. The New Covenant "Limbus Patrum"
Entity State of Grace (Guilt) Impediment (Debt) Intermediate Destination OT Fathers Possessed Grace (Zoe). Lacked the Cross. Limbus Patrum The Just Nations Possess Grace (Zoe). Lacks the Character. Limbo of the Just
VI. Part III: The Natural Law Standard
The Invincibly Ignorant are judged by the Primary Precepts (justice/essential order) of the Natural Law. They are not culpable for imperfections regarding Secondary Precepts which were historically conceded by God prior to Christ's restoration.
- Worship: Mortal Sin = Culpable Idolatry / Blasphemy.
- Marriage: Mortal Sin = Adultery (Injustice to bond).
- Purity: Mortal Sin = Sodomy / Coitus Interruptus.
- Justice: Mortal Sin = Murder / Grave Theft / Calumny.
VII. Part IV: Formal Scholastic Syllogisms
1. The Distinction of Justification
- Major Premise: All those who possess the internal state of Grace (Zoe) are justified and protected from the pains of Hell.
- Minor Premise: Pope Pius IX teaches that the Invincibly Ignorant can attain Eternal Life (Zoe) through the "Divine Light" and an upright life.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Invincibly Ignorant can be justified and protected from the pains of Hell without being formal members of the Church.
2. The Objective Requirement of the Character
- Major Premise: No soul can enter the immediate Beatific Vision (Soteria) without the objective "Key" of the Baptismal Character.
- Minor Premise: The Invincibly Ignorant, while possessing the subjective desire (votum), do not possess the objective Baptismal Character in this life.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Invincibly Ignorant are barred from immediate entry into the Beatific Vision upon death.
VIII. Part V: Responses to Objections and the Doctrine of Immense Peril
Objection: Does this model encourage religious indifferentism?
Response: This model actually increases the urgency of missions. By defining the "Upright Life" through the rigorous standard of the Primary Precepts of the Natural Law, we reveal that the Invincibly Ignorant are in "immense peril."
1. The Darkness of the Intellect
While the Primary Precepts of the Natural Law are knowable by reason, the human intellect is darkened by Original Sin. Without the "Light of Revelation" to clarify moral truths, the Invincibly Ignorant are easily deceived by cultural depravity and sophisticated rationalizations for intrinsic evils. Reason alone is often insufficient to penetrate the fog of a fallen world.
2. The Weakness of the Will (Concupiscence)
Knowledge of the Law does not grant the power to keep it. The Invincibly Ignorant man suffers from disordered passions (concupiscence) but lacks the "Medicinal Grace" provided by the Sacraments. Without the Eucharist to strengthen the will and Confession to restore the soul after a fall, the man is essentially attempting to climb a vertical cliff-face with broken hands. One single unrepented mortal sin forfeits Zoe.
3. The Statistical Improbability of Perseverance
To die in a state of Zoe outside the Church, a man must successfully navigate a lifetime of temptations while relying solely on "Actual Grace" and "Natural Reason." In the Catholic economy, the "Character" of Baptism and the Sacraments provide an "Ark." The Invincibly Ignorant is "treading water" in a storm. While theoretically possible to survive, it is statistically certain that most will succuмb to the exhaustion of sin.
Objection: Does this contradict the Council of Florence?
Response: Our model distinguishes between Salvation (Soteria) as immediate entry and Life (Zoe) as the state of grace. We affirm that Soteria remains exclusive to the Church’s economy. The Invincibly Ignorant who die in grace are held in a provisional state until they are formally integrated into the Body of Christ at the General Resurrection.
IX. Conclusion: The Final Triumph of the High Priest
The "Debt of Nature" is not a permanent condemnation but a provisional deprivation. At the General Resurrection, Christ makes "all things new" (Apocalypse 21:5). This universal redemptive act serves as the final, absolute application of the Laver of Regeneration to all who possess Zoe. In that moment, the lack of a temporal Sacramental Character is satisfied by the direct action of the glorified Christ.
The Invincibly Ignorant, having been preserved in a state of natural peace (Limbo of the Just), are then fully integrated into the New Heaven and New Earth. They finally attain Soteria, entering the Beatific Vision through the final triumph of Christ over the prior epoch (saeculum) of death.
X. Syllabus of Authorities
Magisterial Docuмents
- Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854): Dogmatic necessity of the Church.
- Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863): On Eternal Life for the ignorant.
- Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): Necessity of union with the Church.
- Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (Session VI): Necessity of the votum.
Scholastic & Scriptural Sources
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (I-II, Q. 94): Natural Law framework.
- Sacramental Ontology: The theology of the Indelible Character.
- Apocalypse 21:5: The promise of Christ to "make all things new."
No, the divine Church, by putting that in law, CANNOT be accused of calling into doubt a previously defined solemn dogma.From Bread of Life:
This law is necessarily conveying that a person who is not baptized with water CAN go to heaven.
Tell me what St. Alphonsus taught (with a quote) that I do not accept."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 (necessitate Medii) 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 ( in voto)."
"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 (necessitate Medii) 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 ( in voto)."
From: (An Exposition and Defense of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)
I accept it all.Again, it entirely depends on what Trent actually taught. Believing that Trent taught that the laver and desire are both necessary is a perfectly valid belief considering Pope St Leo the Great's "Tome" professed at the Council of Chalcedon (posted above)
You reject the "in voto".
I accept it all.No, I do not reject Spiritual Communion, "and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)."
You reject the "in voto".
Sortof, I think. Father Feeney, when asked, said "I don't know. Neither do you." I'll agree with that, but am speculating.I could be wrong, but I suspect part of the issue (along with people just being annoying and stubborn about their preconceived notions) is that you are a theologian so you're using terms the way theologians use them, and a lot of people aren't.
I think there's not only a "Limbo" of perfect natural happiness, where there are infants, but there's something of a continuum in this entire Limbo-like border region, with varying degrees of happiness vs. unhappiness depending on how you lived your life. Even the EENS definitions say that there are greatly different degrees of suffering.
Unbaptized Martys end up perfectly happy, and likely enjoy even a greater happiness than the infants who die without baptism.
I believe that the greatest motivation for wanting to reject EENS dogma is that some Jєωιѕн or Lutheran grandmother who lived a virtuous life, kept natural law, possibly even made a heroic sacrifice by giving her life for her children, that she ends up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire as Satanists, serial killers, blasphemers, etc.
Most people have that binary idea, where it's either unbridled joy in Heaven or eternal tortures in Hell.
This is where the distinction between natural reward / punishment /justice and the unmerited supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision, the distinction that St. Thomas first articulated eloquently comes into play, and not just for infants who die unbaptized. No, as Pius IX teaches, those who haven't committed actual sins do not receive eternal punishmetns for those.
So, just as everyone says that there are degress of happiness and glory in Heaven, and then degrees of suffering in Hell, why wouldn't there also bed degrees of natural happiness in Limbo, from perfect happiness, to more happiness than sorrow, to the opposite, etc. I think it's a sliding scale of happiness and unhappiness, and not just two monolithic places: Heaven or Hell. Either you're a saint next to the Cherubim or playing checkers with Joe Stalin and Judas Iscariot.
Then, because of this binary construct people tend to have in their brains, they reject EENS, since that Lutheran grandmother I mentioned before ... she doesn't really deserve to be cruelly tortured fo eternity just because she grew up in Lutheranism, so then they try to get her into Heaven somehow, to prevent that consequence of EENS dogma.
But if you realized that Heaven is an unmerited free gift that nobody deserves, and that our nature cannot even imagine what it's like since it's so beyond us ... then there's no punishment in not receiving the Beatific Vision.
St. Gregorn nαzιanzen, in rejecting BoD, said that there are some who are not good enough to be glorified but not bad enough to be punished. Somewhere between the punishment (of Hell) and the glory (of Heaven and the Beatific Vision, there's another Limbic type of realm, where unbaptized infants go, but quite possbily others. St. Ambrosed said that martyrs are "washed but not crowned". That's clearly a reference to having their sins washed (at least in terms of their punishment), but not entering the supernatural Kingdom, with the Crown, and the Beatific Vision.
From St. Augustine and for about 7-8 centuries it was ... there's either the glory of Heaven, Beatific Vision, etc. ... or else the fires of Hell. Eastern Fathers were a little more mysical or enigmatic about some speculative other place, such as St. Gregory's statement above. Even Our Lord said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. But those who do not believe will be condemned. That leaves a logical middle area, where you believe (and so are not in the condemned group), but are not saved (are not baptized). So if not saved and not condemned ... where do you go?
Again, it entirely depends on what Trent actually taught. Believing that Trent taught that the laver and desire are both necessary is a perfectly valid belief considering Pope St Leo the Great's "Tome" professed at the Council of Chalcedon (posted above)Trent teaches that Justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. This right here tells us that no sacrament = no justification.
Trent teaches that Justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. This right here tells us that no sacrament = no justification.Right, that is what I believe as well. I also believe that Trent made clear what was being taught when immediately after that part it says "as it is written [John 3:5]"
Trent goes on to say that justification cannot be effected without the desire for the laver of regeneration.
Which is saying both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are necessary for justification. Even if someone disagrees with this, they must admit that nowhere does Trent say the desire alone is all that is needed to be saved. Heck, Trent does not even say that about the sacrament.
3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
//No man is Justified by the "laver of regeneration" if he does not have the "desire thereof". No man is Justified by the "desire thereof" if he does not have the "laver of regeneration"//That is why infants have God Parents...
What about infants?
That is why infants have God Parents..."Willingness" isn't the same as desire though. Desire is actively wanting it. Willingness is just not being opposed.
From Trent's catechism:
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire
and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be
administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence
we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual
without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have,
since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Catechetical Instruction
But as the catechetical form consists of many interrogations, if the person to be instructed be an adult, he
himself answers; if an infant, the sponsor answers for him according to the prescribed form and makes the
solemn promise.
//No man is Justified by the "laver of regeneration" if he does not have the "desire thereof". No man is Justified by the "desire thereof" if he does not have the "laver of regeneration"//Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 is referring to the "impious", or those guilty of actual sin
What about infants?
"Willingness" isn't the same as desire though. Desire is actively wanting it. Willingness is just not being opposed.I might agree if Trent didn't complete it's teaching with John 3:5.
I could be wrong, but I doubt Trent was really intending to anathematize BODers or anti BODers. I think Trent was just saying you *at least* have to desire baptism in order to be saved, in other words, salvation is not by faith alone like Protestants believe, and if you accept the Protestant heresy you are anathema.
//No man is Justified by the "laver of regeneration" if he does not have the "desire thereof". No man is Justified by the "desire thereof" if he does not have the "laver of regeneration"//
What about infants?
A BOD Is salvation by faith alone.
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.
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 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 (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/claiming-something-is-not-'de-fide'-still-has-hellish-consequences/msg1011587/#msg1011587). He says that only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary, and YOU reject it.
You reject St. Alphonsus' teaching (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/claiming-something-is-not-'de-fide'-still-has-hellish-consequences/msg1011587/#msg1011587). He says that only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary, and YOU reject it.
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/
You reject St. Alphonsus' teaching (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/claiming-something-is-not-'de-fide'-still-has-hellish-consequences/msg1011587/#msg1011587). He says that only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary, and YOU reject it.
So, while nearly all Pro-BoDers make no account whatsoever regarding the necessity of the Sacraments, many Anti-BoDers on the other hand do not recognize that there is a way to uphold the necessity of the Sacraments ... even though I consider it to be weak and very flimsy at best, especially when you get into "implicit" territory.
Anti-BoDers correctly establish the MAJOR that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, but a handful of those who favor BoD, most outstandingly St. Robert Bellarmine, realizing that the Sacrament must be operative somehow in order to avoid denying the necessity, carefully articulate that nobody can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, but only without ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Sacrament. Thus, St. Robert says not that those saved by BoD do not receive the Sacrament, but rather that the receive it in voto even if not in actu. Now, as to how the Sacrament can "operate" by way of this votum, especially where someone doesn't even know about the Sacrament or believe in it, i.e. "implicitly", that's a mystery ... not unlike to how some people say that EENS really just means that there's no salvation except BY MEANS OF the Church, an illegitimate transmogrification of the dogma that even +Lefebvre did. Similarly, the Sacrament of Baptism must remain the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (depending on your position -- which we prescind from for now) even in a BoD scenario, since otherwise you're denying the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.
I've invited those BoDers whose articulations are at once a heretical denial regarding the necessity of the Sacrament(s) for salvation and at the same time Pelagianism (at least semi-, but I think far more than semi-), where effectively salvation becomes an ex operantis endeavor ... ironically exactly like the Protestant heresies that Trent was condemning, I've invited them to at least reword their definition and explanation of BoD to make it uphold the necessity of the Sacrament. Otherwise, we have this bizarre notion of the "Anonymous Baptized", people who have somehow been saved by the Sacrament without even knowing it, having no idea what it is, never explicitly desiring it ... but by some strange mystical invisible mechanism, kindof like that "action at a distance" attributed to quantum physics that Einstein denounced as "spooky".
I struggle very much to comprehend how that works, ontologically speaking. HOW exactly does the Sacrament of Baptism function ex opere operato through this votum in order to instrumentally cause salvation. There's only one way to posit this, IMO, and that's to shift the necessity of Baptism into being a necessity of precept ... which is precisely what Bishop Sanborn does in his Anti-Feeneyite Catechism.
Yet another reason I can't really abide BoD theory is in its minimizing the role / function of the Sacramental character, having reduced it to the point of triviality, to the point where it's just a badge of honor that some in Heaven have and some do not, and something that serves as a non-repeatability marker or indicator. Other Sacramental characters effect an ontological change in the recipient ... and that change consists of communicating various divine potencies to human beings who lack these potencies (aka faculties) by nature. We do not have a natural faculty or capability or potency to see God as He is, but the Sacramental character is what communicates that faculty to human beings, just as Holy Orders communicates the faculty to human beings to act in the power of Christ Himself, where they can forgive sins, offer the Holy Sacrifice, as if they were Christ, receiving a divine power. What "divine power" do we get from this trivialized and borderline-meaningless character from Baptism? According to most, practically nothing, since centuries of BoD theory have gutted the significance of the Baptismal character.
Canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law :incense:
The practice of the Church used to be to refuse Christian burial to unbaptized Catechumens...1917 Code says it is to be permitted. Was the Church incorrect before? Correct now? Correct before, and incorrect now?
The 1917 Code is the ecclesiastical law of the Latin Church, it is not intended to teach faith and morals to the universal Church. It's not even binding on the universal Church. One of the very first canons makes clear that the Code in its entirety does not bind the Oriental Churches
Point is, Canon Law is not infallible
So, you are saying it was useless for the Church to officially allow a requiem for a catechumen who died before baptism?Was it useless to forbid it?
Why do you condemn with is in canon law of 1917, Stubborn?Why do you condemn St. Alphonsus, Freind?
Was it useless to forbid it?
Why do you condemn St. Alphonsus, Freind?
I do not condemn anything, or anyone, but fyi, Canon Law is not the Church. It can be argued that there is still time for theological debate regarding the whole issue because the Church has not officially and explicitly condemned the whole idea of a BOD yet.
I asked you a question first.But the forbiddance came before the permittance :popcorn:
But the forbiddance came before the permittance :popcorn:
I asked you a question first. What's your conclusion?No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:
The practice of the Church used to be to refuse Christian burial to unbaptized Catechumens...1917 Code says it is to be permitted. Was the Church incorrect before? Correct now? Correct before, and incorrect now?
No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:
You can't even answer "yes" that "the Church" gave us the New Testament. What do you know, then?Well you asked a very puerile question in your effort to distract from answering anything at all, I mean, it's like asking if wind blows.
You can't even say when "the Church" does something. Go ahead if you think you can, give us a list of examples.
No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:
A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."
...
The reason of this regulation [forbidding Christian burial rites to unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.
Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) vol. 2
Ecclesiastical law is not infallible, that's my point. If you think the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect. If the prior practice was correct, than the 1917 Code is incorrect.
Ecclesiastical burial is to be given to Catechumens who die without baptism. That's the current law. A future pope could abrogate the current law, and enact a new law that would forbid ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized Catechumens..as was done in the past
The 1917 Code does not teach faith and morals to the Universal Church, and it does not bind the Universal Church in its entirety. If the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect.
Nice trap with "useless", too bad you didn't have the satisfaction of its success :laugh2:
Now, what is the "usefulness" of the reversal of the prior practice, and the implementation of the current Canon? I don't know. I don't need to know. I didn't make the law, I don't know the reasoning of whoever wrote that Canon. But the law's the law, of course
Yes, it is infallible. It is "the Church" that does it, and it cannot do anything against morals and faith to the whole Church. This is not "papal infallibility". It is the Church infallibility. St. Thomas says it is a BLASPHEMY to say THE CHURCH does anything harmful or even "useless". You willing to commit blasphemy?No, The Church does not make Canon Laws, the pope does. Popes are infallible when they define a doctrine Ex Cathedra, popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are entirely capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful. Although likely blasphemous to you, this is the truth.
I wonder whether you even read all I responded with. The examples I gave were all changes, all useful and good.
Just like Stubborn, you can't say when "the Church" does some thing. Look what V2 has done to you.You're talking gibberish now
You're talking gibberish now
How's this: "The Church" does teach that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation
"'The Church" does not teach BOD as a Dogma to be believed and professed by all the faithful
At the end of the day, you have your opinion. I have mine.
You can imbibe the Cekadan bitter zeal and condemn all those who do not agree with your opinion as being guilty of mortal sin.
Or, you can be honest, have some humility, and admit that no Council or no Pope has ever taught BOD to the Universal Church
It's always glaringly apparent who's learned theology from pre-vat 2 books and who's learned it from Internet curators. Freind is the former, and that's why he fits in so poorly here.