Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Raoul76 on October 05, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
-
-
It also makes sense because Christ says "You must be born of water and the Spirit" but then IN ANOTHER PLACE only mentions the Spirit. This is scriptural proof of baptism of desire.
You're breaking from the Magisterium. St. John 3:5 has been infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium several times. St. John 3:7, on the other hand, ZERO.
I will now do the same for perfect contrition, which you believe in and in fact are counting on, as am I.
Council of Trent:
"As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin."
Do you see, Catholic Martyr? Penance is NECESSARY. The Council of Trent said so! No perfect contrition!
Once again, the Popes stress the necessity of baptism, but by doing so they do not deny baptism of desire. Nor do they deny perfect contrition when they stress the necessity of penance.
This analogy does not work, for a few reasons. It has never been dogmatically defined that your confession must be to a priest who is right next to you, or even in the same plane.
It is quite possible that a soul may be absolved of sin by making a confession to, let's say St. Paul, or the Curé d'Ars, or to any other confessor in the Heavenly Host.
If you have some Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterial teaching that can prove to me that there is no way for this to be a valid sacramental confession, then please present it so I may not be heretical, but I have looked into the matter and I believe it is a sound position.
Which is why I regularly read Scripture, the works of Saints and examine my conscience, confess to the confessors in the Heavenly Host and do what meager penance and mortification I can bare (hopefully I will continuously improve in the regard).
So if you can prove to me that I do not meet the necessity of penance, by doing this, you might have a point. Otherwise, I am not "counting on" perfect contrition at all, though yes I do believe in it, and yes I still beg for it. But I do not at this point believe it is my only way of being saved.
Besides, you know very well that Catholic theology has placed a distinction on the sacraments' necessity, namely necessity of precept for Penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, and necessity of means for Holy Baptism. If I am wrong about the above, then I would indeed be counting on perfect contrition (which is one of the reasons I beg for it every day).
Go look up necessity of means, and then explain to me how it is not a contradiction to believe in baptism of desire AND believe that the sacrament of baptism is necessary by a necessity of means.
See if you can do it without changing the definition of necessity of means.
-
But I have a few questions for you also:
1) Does baptism of desire according to you imprint the soul with the baptismal character?
2) Does it carry all of the effects of baptism, every single one?
3) Does God baptize the soul Himself, or does he send an angel, a saved priest, or a just priest whose soul is still in the body?
4) Does God (or the minister delegated to this task) use pure and natural water to baptize the person and do so in the form of the Church?
5) If there are people around, would they see this taking place, or is it invisible, as Augustine once said?
-
You're breaking from the Magisterium. St. John 3:5 has been infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium several times. St. John 3:7, on the other hand, ZERO.
Excuse me. St. John 3:8.
Will you respond?
-
The Church cannot prescribe harmful doctrine and not to hold requiem masses or chanting or sacrifices for someone who died before baptism is indeed harmful, if that soul is in purgatory...
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
-
...
A person has to admit that this tradition would either be harmful to these souls, or baptism of desire is not true.
...
So either the Catholic Church had propagated and held a universal discipline for 1800+ years which was detrimental to the souls in purgatory
Only if you think Purgatory is harmful, and that God is unjust.
-
The Church cannot prescribe harmful doctrine and not to hold requiem masses or chanting or sacrifices for someone who died before baptism is indeed harmful, if that soul is in purgatory...
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
Other than the fact that the individuals there are suffering. However, unlike the damned, their time will come. I hope to go to Purgatory someday -- it's the best that I can do.
-
The Church cannot prescribe harmful doctrine and not to hold requiem masses or chanting or sacrifices for someone who died before baptism is indeed harmful, if that soul is in purgatory...
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
Oh Clare, have you been reading your catechism again? Don't you know those catechisms contain errors and heresies?
Why can't you just figure this out on your own? :)
-
The Church cannot prescribe harmful doctrine and not to hold requiem masses or chanting or sacrifices for someone who died before baptism is indeed harmful, if that soul is in purgatory...
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
Oh Clare, have you been reading your catechism again? Don't you know those catechisms contain errors and heresies?
Why can't you just figure this out on your own? :)
If that wasn't the case, why, then, were they revised over time? (Oh, I am talking with SJB again, a woman with the middle name of "John".)
-
The Church cannot prescribe harmful doctrine and not to hold requiem masses or chanting or sacrifices for someone who died before baptism is indeed harmful, if that soul is in purgatory...
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
Oh Clare, have you been reading your catechism again? Don't you know those catechisms contain errors and heresies?
Why can't you just figure this out on your own? :)
If that wasn't the case, why, then, were they revised over time? (Oh, I am talking with SJB again, a woman with the middle name of "John".)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Except you're a really bad imitator. :)
Revised when? Be specific.
-
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Except you're a really bad imitator. :)
Revised when? Be specific.
You are a woman, and I find your tactics deceitful, and I have nothing further to say to you.
-
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
Other than the fact that the individuals there are suffering. However, unlike the damned, their time will come. I hope to go to Purgatory someday -- it's the best that I can do.
The souls in Purgatory are suffering intensely, but they are not harmed.
-
Harmful to souls in Purgatory? No, that's impossible. It is an act of charity, and salutary, to pray and offer sacrifices for souls there to get them out quicker, but it would not do them any harm for them to stay there for as long as they would have to without our prayers and sacrifices, would it? Purgatory is no picnic, but it is not harmful. On the contrary.
Other than the fact that the individuals there are suffering. However, unlike the damned, their time will come. I hope to go to Purgatory someday -- it's the best that I can do.
The souls in Purgatory are suffering intensely, but they are not harmed.
have heard that Purgatory is more painful then anything on earth, but conversly, also great joy in sufferings and the ultimate goal.......some way we cannot grasp now how they can simultaneously work.......
-
Oh Clare, have you been reading your catechism again? Don't you know those catechisms contain errors and heresies?
Why can't you just figure this out on your own? :)
:D Actually, to be honest, I didn't read it in the catechism, it's just common sense.
Who ever heard of Purgatory doing anyone any harm???
There's a difference between hurting and harming.
(But I know you're not arguing with me anyway!)
-
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Except you're a really bad imitator. :)
Revised when? Be specific.
You are a woman, and I find your tactics deceitful, and I have nothing further to say to you.
You are a man who doesn't know his basic catechism on the sacraments. You should have nothing further to say...why don't you spend some time reading instead. Learn, then speak with humility.
-
Oh Clare, have you been reading your catechism again? Don't you know those catechisms contain errors and heresies?
Why can't you just figure this out on your own? :)
:D Actually, to be honest, I didn't read it in the catechism, it's just common sense.
Who ever heard of Purgatory doing anyone any harm???
There's a difference between hurting and harming.
(But I know you're not arguing with me anyway!)
Of course, but you properly understood Purgatory...which comes from knowing your catechism. :)
-
Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare,' on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.
Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell.
SOURCE: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed05.shtml
Decree Concerning Purgatory
Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecuмenical council that there is a purgatory,[1] and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils,[2] be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached. The more difficult and subtle questions, however, and those that do not make for edification and from which there is for the most part no increase in piety, are to be excluded from popular instructions to uneducated people.[3] Likewise, things that are uncertain or that have the appearance of falsehood they shall not permit to be made known publicly and discussed. But those things that tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, they shall prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful. The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass,[4] prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church and others who are bound to render this service not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately.
SOURCE: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT25.HTM#1
693 [ De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].
SOURCE: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php
also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
-
Yes, Belloc.
So are we agreed that Purgatory, while it hurts a great deal, does not actually harm the souls there?
And that, while it is a great shame that any unbaptised occupants have been denied the benefit of our Masses and sacrifices, that it does not actually do them any harm to serve the maximum sentence?
We all probably deserve worse than we get anyway.
-
You are a man who doesn't know his basic catechism on the sacraments. You should have nothing further to say...why don't you spend some time reading instead. Learn, then speak with humility.
I am not sure what benefit that would bring to me. I would be forced to conclude, as have many secular scholars, that the Catholic Church, and, hence, God (at least in my case but not theirs), speaks with a "forked tongue," something that I do not believe. My theology is not based upon some catechism but upon my own historical analysis, that is, what did the earliest Christians believe. The scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages based their theology upon the same sources that I do -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the writings of the Nicene and pre-Nicene Fathers. The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins seems an immemorial principle to me.
-
I am not sure what benefit that would bring to me. I would be forced to conclude, as have many secular scholars, that the Catholic Church, and, hence, God (at least in my case but not theirs), speaks with a "forked tongue," something that I do not believe. ...
So, secular scholars don't understand Church teaching. Why follow their lead?
-
You are a man who doesn't know his basic catechism on the sacraments. You should have nothing further to say...why don't you spend some time reading instead. Learn, then speak with humility.
I am not sure what benefit that would bring to me. I would be forced to conclude, as have many secular scholars, that the Catholic Church, and, hence, God (at least in my case but not theirs), speaks with a "forked tongue," something that I do not believe. My theology is not based upon some catechism but upon my own historical analysis, that is, what did the earliest Christians believe. The scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages based their theology upon the same sources that I do -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the writings of the Nicene and pre-Nicene Fathers. The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins seems an immemorial principle to me.
Except you're not a scholastic theologian. Are you aware of that?
-
My theology is not based upon some catechism but upon my own historical analysis, that is, what did the earliest Christians believe. The scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages based their theology upon the same sources that I do -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the writings of the Nicene and pre-Nicene Fathers. The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins seems an immemorial principle to me.
um..dont those compiling catechisms do the same thing, drawing from Papal docuмents, saints, Doctors,scripture, Fathers,etc......?
will try to track it down, but there is a scripture quote that goes something like "cease from thine own wisdom"
-
Good points Clare. I will be removing this argument from my BoD article.
-
Yes, Belloc.
So are we agreed that Purgatory, while it hurts a great deal, does not actually harm the souls there?
And that, while it is a great shame that any unbaptised occupants have been denied the benefit of our Masses and sacrifices, that it does not actually do them any harm to serve the maximum sentence?
We all probably deserve worse than we get anyway.
souls there are in God's care,since they have no bodies, not like you can get a literal 3rd degree burn..or damage to tissues,etc....also, teh soul is immortal.which is part of the horror of Hell..in this life, burn up in a fire, it is painful, but it will last only a short time (assuming death and not a long time in hospital)....the pain is real in feeling, but also interiorly (supposedly, the warning of Chastisement is a mini-judgment and like this)
-
Except you're not a scholastic theologian. Are you aware of that?
Yes. As I stated before, most of the Church's theologians of today support gαy sex, so what's your point?
-
But I have a few questions for you also:
1) Does baptism of desire according to you imprint the soul with the baptismal character?
2) Does it carry all of the effects of baptism, every single one?
3) Does God baptize the soul Himself, or does he send an angel, a saved priest, or a just priest whose soul is still in the body?
4) Does God (or the minister delegated to this task) use pure and natural water to baptize the person and do so in the form of the Church?
5) If there are people around, would they see this taking place, or is it invisible, as Augustine once said?
BOB/D does not imprint an indeleble mark on the soul though it does remove Original Sin. BOB also removes temporal punishment due to previous sins.
God, "baptizes" cleanses the soul of Original Sin at death in BOB/D.
BOB/D does not make one worth to receive the other Sacraments as only water baptism makes this possible. But one cannot receive the Sacraments in Purgatory or Heaven.
-
BOB/D does not imprint an indeleble mark on the soul though it does remove Original Sin. BOB also removes temporal punishment due to previous sins.
God, "baptizes" cleanses the soul of Original Sin at death in BOB/D.
BOB/D does not make one worth to receive the other Sacraments as only water baptism makes this possible. But one cannot receive the Sacraments in Purgatory or Heaven.
This is salutary repentance, which I find to be completely orthodox. Basically, the non-Catholic would, at the moment of death, receive the graces of the One and Triune God to die as a Catholic. As I mentioned before, this is why heretics were burned alive in the Middle Ages, instead of being hung, beheaded, etc. Being a relapsed heretic "abandoned" to secular justice, it was universally believed that the individual was "outside of the Church"; hence, outside of Christ's Mystical Body (the Church) and was destined for Hell. However, in being burned alive it was believed by some theologians that the heretic could receive the graces of God, make perfect contrition of his/her sins, and pass into Purgatory instead of Hell.
In short, I see no reason that what was possible for condemned heretics would not also be possible for Jєωs, pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, Protestants, schismatics, Norvus Ordo heretics, SSPX heretics, etc. If God can perform an act for one individual, then He could do the same act for many.
This is not universalism, which has been, of course, condemned by the Church. Some people will not make it to Heaven, perhaps most, perhaps only a few will not make it. Difficult to know for sure. In any case, I think that this is why the Florentine Fathers added the clause "before the end of their lives," knowing, of course, that such repentance at death was possible, but not necessarily probable.
As one priest (having since died) told me, Purgatory is going to be a giant RCIA program for people.
-
Of course people in those sects you named would not be saved because of their religion or by it but due to their sincerity of heart.
Those who admit the BOB/D doctrine can also admit those saved by the other forms of the one Baptism are few. How many are inculpable i.e. don't know and cannot reasonably be expected to know that the Catholic Church is the One True Faith.
Of course with the ape v2 Church posing as that Church it could become confusing for those sincerely looking for the truth.
We MUST leave it in God's hands, Catholic Martyr.
No obstinate wrangling or impious inquiry as to the subjective guild of another.
We must bow to the mystery. Shh.
-
I'm waiting for Michael.
-
Whose MIchael.
-
No obstinate wrangling or impious inquiry as to the subjective guild of another.
Actually there is an unlawful inquiry we can make. But I am not the one making it. Here ou go, form the very teaching some claim teaches that invincible ignorance saves:
For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
-
Is there ONE God?
-
What on earth are you talking about?
-
Whose MIchael.
I don't know who owns him.
-
As one priest (having since died) told me, Purgatory is going to be a giant RCIA program for people.
God would never be that merciless!
-
No obstinate wrangling or impious inquiry as to the subjective guild of another.
Actually there is an unlawful inquiry we can make. But I am not the one making it. Here ou go, form the very teaching some claim teaches that invincible ignorance saves:
For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
This is a lie. Nobody here who opposes your ramblings believes that ignorance of any kind saves.
Invincible ignorance can EXCUSE some transgressions of the law. This should seem quite obvious to any person of normal intelligence.
Are you denying there is such a thing as invincible (inculpable) ignorance?
-
As one priest (having since died) told me, Purgatory is going to be a giant RCIA program for people.
God would never be that merciless!
That would be harmful, wouldn't it? An RCIA program, that is.
-
As one priest (having since died) told me, Purgatory is going to be a giant RCIA program for people.
God would never be that merciless!
That would be harmful, wouldn't it? An RCIA program, that is.
It certainly would. One doesn't expect to go to Purgatory only to end up believing in Catholicism-lite!
-
Lover of Truth: Of course people in those sects you named would not be saved because of their religion or by it but due to their sincerity of heart.
This is heresy or at least proximate to heresy. They would be saved because of explicit faith in Jesus Christ, which, I am claiming, they could receive at the moment of death in the fullness of Christian revelation, which they could, of course, accept or reject. I suppose that it would be akin to some sort of Near-Death experience. If a Buddhist goes to Heaven, it will be a Christian Heaven that he/she finds himself/herself in, and he/she will be worshiping, for all Eternity, the One and Only Son of God. Right?
It is completely conceivable that the One and Triune God being infinite, uncaused, omniscience, omnipotent, and omnipresent could insure that such non-Catholics whom He was going to offer salutary repentance would receive the Sacrament of Baptism during their infancies. To say otherwise would be to deny the attributes of God. If you accept the creation of the Universe ex nihilo, then you must accept the possibility of God doing this, or at least His capability in doing it.
-
As one priest (having since died) told me, Purgatory is going to be a giant RCIA program for people.
God would never be that merciless!
That would be harmful, wouldn't it? An RCIA program, that is.
It certainly would. One doesn't expect to go to Purgatory only to end up believing in Catholicism-lite!
I am sure that Saints Thomas & Augustine will be writing the curriculum. No doubt that they have at this time the fullness of Revelation.
-
As one priest (having since died) told me, Purgatory is going to be a giant RCIA program for people.
God would never be that merciless!
That would be harmful, wouldn't it? An RCIA program, that is.
It certainly would. One doesn't expect to go to Purgatory only to end up believing in Catholicism-lite!
I am sure that Saints Thomas & Augustine will be writing the curriculum. No doubt that they have at this time the fullness of Revelation.
Like you have right now, huh Jehanne?
-
What on earth are you talking about?
You asked if there was one baptism. I asked if there was One God.
There is One God in THREE Persons and one Baptism with THREE forms.
-
No obstinate wrangling or impious inquiry as to the subjective guild of another.
Actually there is an unlawful inquiry we can make. But I am not the one making it. Here ou go, form the very teaching some claim teaches that invincible ignorance saves:
For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
This is a lie. Nobody here who opposes your ramblings believes that ignorance of any kind saves.
Invincible ignorance can EXCUSE some transgressions of the law. This should seem quite obvious to any person of normal intelligence.
Are you denying there is such a thing as invincible (inculpable) ignorance?
That is correct. Ignorance does not damn a man but NEITHER does it save him.
-
Lover of Truth: Of course people in those sects you named would not be saved because of their religion or by it but due to their sincerity of heart.
This is heresy or at least proximate to heresy. They would be saved because of explicit faith in Jesus Christ, which, I am claiming, they could receive at the moment of death in the fullness of Christian revelation, which they could, of course, accept or reject. I suppose that it would be akin to some sort of Near-Death experience. If a Buddhist goes to Heaven, it will be a Christian Heaven that he/she finds himself/herself in, and he/she will be worshiping, for all Eternity, the One and Only Son of God. Right?
It is completely conceivable that the One and Triune God being infinite, uncaused, omniscience, omnipotent, and omnipresent could insure that such non-Catholics whom He was going to offer salutary repentance would receive the Sacrament of Baptism during their infancies. To say otherwise would be to deny the attributes of God. If you accept the creation of the Universe ex nihilo, then you must accept the possibility of God doing this, or at least His capability in doing it.
What you say is true regarding His capability of administering BOB/D as well.
Baptism with water is a necessity of means, not an intrinsic necessity.
God uses physical things such as water, oil, bread, the sound of the Priests voice to do invisible works through visible substances but those visible substances are not of intrinsic necessity for those works to be done, ergo Baptism of Desire, Penance of Desire, Spiritual Communion. Of cours with the first two they must by Phisically administered if and when this becomes possible.
-
Lover of Truth: Of course people in those sects you named would not be saved because of their religion or by it but due to their sincerity of heart.
This is heresy or at least proximate to heresy. They would be saved because of explicit faith in Jesus Christ, which, I am claiming, they could receive at the moment of death in the fullness of Christian revelation, which they could, of course, accept or reject. I suppose that it would be akin to some sort of Near-Death experience. If a Buddhist goes to Heaven, it will be a Christian Heaven that he/she finds himself/herself in, and he/she will be worshiping, for all Eternity, the One and Only Son of God. Right?
It is completely conceivable that the One and Triune God being infinite, uncaused, omniscience, omnipotent, and omnipresent could insure that such non-Catholics whom He was going to offer salutary repentance would receive the Sacrament of Baptism during their infancies. To say otherwise would be to deny the attributes of God. If you accept the creation of the Universe ex nihilo, then you must accept the possibility of God doing this, or at least His capability in doing it.
What you say is true regarding His capability of administering BOB/D as well.
Baptism with water is a necessity of means, not an intrinsic necessity.
God uses physical things such as water, oil, bread, the sound of the Priests voice to do invisible works through visible substances but those visible substances are not of intrinsic necessity for those works to be done, ergo Baptism of Desire, Penance of Desire, Spiritual Communion. Of cours with the first two they must by Phisically administered if and when this becomes possible.
It is de fide that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, and with it, the vow, at least implicit, for Baptism. If you do not acknowledge this, then you are a heretic, and I have nothing further to say to you.
-
This is a lie. Nobody here who opposes your ramblings believes that ignorance of any kind saves.
Invincible ignorance can EXCUSE some transgressions of the law. This should seem quite obvious to any person of normal intelligence.
Are you denying there is such a thing as invincible (inculpable) ignorance?
You are wrong: stevusmagnus has explicitly stated that invincible ignorance saves. Don't accuse falsely.
Are you denying there is such a thing as invincible (inculpable) ignorance?
No. I never have. How could you possibly have read that into my words?
-
Criminy. 44 replies to this?
I am sorry not to respond, I'm not running away from my own statement. I am researching a massive series of articles I plan to write on NFP, one of these days. I'm now wondering if NFP is not the great "secret heresy" of our time, because it snuck in under the radar before the shock of Vatican II.
BoD and BoB I believe will eventually be defined as Jehanne says. You must have an explicit vow to belong to the Catholic Church. It is not just enough to have faith in Jesus Christ, for instance, to vow to become Protestant. One Pope often quoted by Feeneyites says that even the shedding of blood will not suffice for salvation unless you are within the Catholic Church -- this rules out baptism of blood for those who are trying to be Christian but not Catholic.
Unlike anyone else here, most likely, I was baptized as an adult and have traced all of this in my own soul. I know that I was reborn as soon as I decided to become Catholic. Since then Jesus has "known" me. For two years before that I was just "Christian" and if I had died then, I believe I would have gone to hell.
But if I had died as a catechumen, I think I would have had a good chance at salvation.
***********
I read an interesting quote from Pope St. Leo the Great. I can't find it now, I'll try to dig it up again, but he said that if you were baptized by a heretic -- referring to an Arian -- it does not count as a real baptism, but that you don't need to get baptized again even conditionally. Instead you only need the "laying on of hands" of a real Catholic bishop, in other words, confirmation.
This implictly confirms baptism of desire, because he is saying that someone with an invalid baptism does not need to have it redone.
Here's a question to make everyone's head spin: What about someone baptized by a Freemason with evil intent, such as whom lurked in the Church long before Vatican II? What if someone was baptized by a "jureur" heretic, a French priest who went along with the Revolution? This would be like being baptized by an Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, etc.
The wrong intent destroys baptism, you know. Does God abandon all those who had this type of baptism, or has He seen that they DESIRED the waters of baptism and supplied the justification invisibly for them HIMSELF?
If there were no baptism of desire, heretics could sneak into the Church, as they have done now, and take everyone to hell with them through invalid baptisms, not even needing to bother with tricking them through various false doctrines.
The irony of all this is that Catholic Martyr, baptized in the Novus Ordo, may not even be validly baptized. Maybe none of us are, since the clergy is essentially kaput.
I leave you with another quote from Trent I just discovered, the third snippet I've found where it clearly teaches baptism of desire. This is from Session 7:
"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.
-
The wrong intent destroys baptism, you know.
So long as the minister intends to DO as the Church DOES, all is presumed well. How do you KNOW whether or not he has such an intention? Well, if he DOES what the Church prescribes, it is a GIVEN that all is well. Such is the nature of human actions.
-
Here's a question to make everyone's head spin: What about someone baptized by a Freemason with evil intent, such as whom lurked in the Church long before Vatican II?
Sorry to disappoint (sort of :wink:), but such does not make my head spin at all.
-
How much harm do I do you when I intend to kill you with a handgun, but fail to pull the trigger? ZEE-ROW. Such is the harm done by one with the supposed "evil intention" who performs an act contrary thereto.
-
How much harm do I do you when I intend to kill you with a handgun, but fail to pull the trigger? ZEE-ROW. Such is the harm done by one with the supposed "evil intention" who performs an act contrary thereto.
Is that what they told you at SGG?
This articles says mere externals are not sufficient.
The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm
-
HOW would you ever go about PROVING such?
Btw, read the quote, which gels with what my main point is:
"The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does."
-
Intending to do what the Church does is NOT the same thing as intending what the Church intends.
-
Intending to do what the Church does is NOT the same thing as intending what the Church intends.
It isn't merely a matter of externals. Which means that it's possible to "fake it."
-
Intending to do what the Church does is NOT the same thing as intending what the Church intends.
It isn't merely a matter of externals. Which means that it's possible to "fake it."
The condemnation by Pope Alexander VIII against the Jansenists would seem to agree with you Telesphorus.
Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but within his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does. - CONDEMNED
(now I know why the St. Thomas article was posted!)
-
Raoul76, I specifically am asking you to answer my 5 questions. They appear earlier in the thread (twice).
I read an interesting quote from Pope St. Leo the Great. I can't find it now, I'll try to dig it up again, but he said that if you were baptized by a heretic -- referring to an Arian -- it does not count as a real baptism, but that you don't need to get baptized again even conditionally. Instead you only need the "laying on of hands" of a real Catholic bishop, in other words, confirmation.
Show me. I am happy to wait patiently, but not indefinitely.
-
It isn't merely a matter of externals.
Please quote my words that say I believe it IS.
Which means that it's possible to "fake it."
Again: HOW would you PROVE such in any given case?
-
...now I know why the St. Thomas article was posted!
Uh, because it is crystal clear and true?
-
Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but within his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does. - CONDEMNED
This is like saying that a sane man who shoots his mother in cold blood SHOULD be found guilty, even if he supposedly claimed he internally had a different intention.
How would you PROVE a scenario like the one condemned existed?
"I do NOT intend to pour this water, in this manner, pronouncing these words, even while I, simultaneously, am DOING these very things..." ?%$*@$?
-
Watch your mouth, Irish, and keep your shirt on. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Pope Leo XIII teaches that when the externals are performed according as the Church does them, we should presume that the minister has the intention to do what the Church does.
However, people can say things they don't intend to say, and do things they don't intend to do. I believe I have experienced this myself.
Now it could be argued that I had fully intended to say _______, but after I said it I repented of myself. This, in a minister would not invalidate the sacrament. But if in fact I meant to say _______, but something else came out instead, then it could be argued that a minister, likewise, could intend not to do what the Church does, but does it anyway.
Just like you might intend to go buy milk after work, but you drive straight home instead, because of an ingrained repetitious pattern of behaviour.
-
The irony of all this is that Catholic Martyr, baptized in the Novus Ordo, may not even be validly baptized. Maybe none of us are, since the clergy is essentially kaput.
I was baptized by an Anglican minister. My family didn't go N.O. until I was a couple years old. I was 'confirmed' in the N.O.
I have since asked a person I know to conditionally baptize me. He is a pagan, and I am honestly still wondering if I am actually baptized.
At one point he stopped pouring while he was saying the words, and I don't really know if this has any nullifying affect, or if it might have been a manifestation of his intention not to do what the Church does.
-
The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.
You CANNOT know the internal disposition of anybody unless it is externally indicated. This passage, where ever it came from, is not at odds with that truth.
The "real internal intention" is manifest by the performance of the proper external rite and no external indications of the lack of an intention.
If this was not the case, NOBODY would ever know if they were receiving a valid sacrament.
-
Just like you might intend to go buy milk after work, but you drive straight home instead, because of an ingrained repetitious pattern of behaviour.
Please read about HABITUAL intentions in St Thomas' article on this subject. He is in complete harmony with the mind if the Church.
-
Very interesting. Thank you.
Reply to Objection 3. Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to Psalm 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me."
The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.
-
The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.
You CANNOT know the internal disposition of anybody unless it is externally indicated. This passage, where ever it came from, is not at odds with that truth.
The "real internal intention" is manifest by the performance of the proper external rite and no external indications of the lack of an intention.
If this was not the case, NOBODY would ever know if they were receiving a valid sacrament.
It's from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on intention. Sorry I left out the link.
-
It isn't merely a matter of externals.
Please quote my words that say I believe it IS.
Which means that it's possible to "fake it."
Again: HOW would you PROVE such in any given case?
You generally can't prove it but you can certainly suspect that it has happened in certain cases.