Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: JohnAnthonyMarie on March 29, 2014, 12:01:40 PM
-
CODEX IURIS CANONICI
Canon 737
Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cuм praescripta verborum forma.
Google translation:
Baptism, the door and the foundation of the Sacraments, to all the necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is not conferred validly, except by washing in real water and the natural with the provisions of the form of words.
Woywod & Smith Commentary:
632. Baptism - the door and foundation of all other Sacraments, the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired - is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words.
-
CODEX IURIS CANONICI
Canon 1239
§ 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."
-
First of all, don't dishonestly conflate the Abbo-Hannan commentary with the CCL itself, pretending that it has the same authority by association. NOBODY in a Catholic funeral is "supposed" to have died united to Christ (and therefore to have been saved). Catholic funerals are given to those for whom there's the POSSIBILITY that they were saved. I would imagine that a majority of those for whom Catholic funerals are offered are actually in hell while the funeral is taking place. So Abbo-Hannan are completely full of it.
What the 1917 CCL does is to allow the possibility that catechumens could be saved, in a very specific pastoral context. Previous Church law had forbidden this practice. It's merely a pastoral presumption. Similarly, the Church makes a pastoral presumption that ѕυιcιdєs are not saved, but it's still theoretically possible that they may have been. Notice the phraseology "they are TO BE TREATED as baptized". Consequently this is a PRESUMPTION.
So, the CCL does demonstrate that the Church TOLERATES the opinion among Catholics that "CATECHUMENS" can be saved. Notice the word CATECHUMEN. So this bears absolutely no bearing on your HERETICAL Faith of Desire position, JAM. It's clear that the Dimonds and others who hold BoD for catechumens to be heretical are way exceeding their boundaries. In fact, to treat such people as heretical would be schismatic, for it's schismatic to separate oneself from those whom the Church considers to be Catholic, and with things like the 1917 CC it clearly tolerates that opinion among Catholics.
You do realize, JAM, that the 1917 CCL was never intended to define any doctrine or dogma. CCL is infallible to the extent that it cannot impose anything positively harmful upon the faithful, not that every word is inspired. Since by definition, the CCL is a disciplinary and not doctrinal action, we are talking about legal and pastoral presumptions and not actual doctrinal definitions.
-
It's clear that the Dimonds and others who hold BoD for catechumens to be heretical are way exceeding their boundaries. In fact, to treat such people as heretical would be schismatic, for it's schismatic to separate oneself from those whom the Church considers to be Catholic, and with things like the 1917 CC it clearly tolerates that opinion among Catholics.
You still want to call me a Dimond "dittohead", Ambrose?
-
First of all, don't dishonestly conflate the Abbo-Hannan commentary with the CCL itself, pretending that it has the same authority by association.
First, and foremost, you might CHOOSE to tame your wild imagination and proceed to communicate with people in a manner more befitting a Christian. Listen carefully, just because you can imagine some absurd exaggeration does not in any way mean that that is what I am doing. Seriously, the commentary was clearly labeled.
Unless you have some authoritative Church reference to provide, your OPINIONS are exactly that, opinions, and they really serve best clothed in charity.
-
It's clear that the Dimonds and others who hold BoD for catechumens to be heretical are way exceeding their boundaries. In fact, to treat such people as heretical would be schismatic, for it's schismatic to separate oneself from those whom the Church considers to be Catholic, and with things like the 1917 CC it clearly tolerates that opinion among Catholics.
You still want to call me a Dimond "dittohead", Ambrose?
You may not hold all of their positions, but you appear to have learned some of your ideas from them.
Do you deny that you have not read the Dimonds works on matters of Faith and morals? A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
You may not hold all of their positions, but you appear to have learned some of your ideas from them.
You're a complete joke, Ambrose. I've already explained to you a dozen times how I arrived at my conclusions, well before I had ever heard of the Dimonds.
-
You guys are nothing but dishonest, insincere, bad-willed heretics.
-
You may not hold all of their positions, but you appear to have learned some of your ideas from them.
You're a complete joke, Ambrose. I've already explained to you a dozen times how I arrived at my conclusions, well before I had every heard of the Dimonds.
So you cannot answer a simple question. Have you read the writings of the Dimonds?
-
You heretics will never rest until we claim that EENS means the opposite of EENS. You're downright diabolical.
-
So you cannot answer a simple question. Have you read the writings of the Dimonds?
You know full well that I have read the Dimonds.
-
So you cannot answer a simple question. Have you read the writings of the Dimonds?
You know full well that I have read the Dimonds.
I know, but I wanted you to admit it. Whether you realize it or not, you have been influenced by these heretics.
You should not have read from them. There are countless warnings to avoid heretics and their works.
-
I have been no more influenced by them than I have by anything else I've read. I reject at least 25% of their arguments as invalid (for being over simplistic).
-
You should not have read from them. There are countless warnings to avoid heretics and their works.
YOU are the heretic, Ambrose. I should probably put you on hide.
-
You should not have read from them. There are countless warnings to avoid heretics and their works.
YOU are the heretic, Ambrose. I should probably put you on hide.
I take it as a privilege to be called a heretic by one such as you, the Dimonds, Luther, Jensenius, or Calvin.
You can put me on hide, but you can not hide from God.
-
Again the heretical depravity runs so deep in you that you consider it an honor to undermine the EENS dogma; that makes you proud.
There's nothing heretical in the writings of the Dimonds. They err, however, in turning the error of BoD for catechumens into "heresy", and by considering those who hold it to be outside the Church, they are being schismatic, for it's schismatic to sever communion with those whom the Church considers Catholic.
-
Again the heretical depravity runs so deep in you that you consider it an honor to undermine the EENS dogma; that makes you proud.
There's nothing heretical in the writings of the Dimonds. They err, however, in turning the error of BoD for catechumens into "heresy", and by considering those who hold it to be outside the Church, they are being schismatic, for it's schismatic to sever communion with those whom the Church considers Catholic.
You state that you have not adopted heresy. Then state clearly for all on this forum that you believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
-
You state that you have not adopted heresy. Then state clearly for all on this forum that you believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Those are not dogmas, fool; they are errors rooted in speculative theology.
Not once have any of you demonstrated how BoB and BoD have been revealed.
-
You state that you have not adopted heresy. Then state clearly for all on this forum that you believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Those are not dogmas, fool; they are errors rooted in speculative theology.
Not once have any of you demonstrated how BoB and BoD have been revealed.
Baptism of Desire was taught by the Council of Trent, and also by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. To deny it is heresy.
Baptism of Blood is explicitly taught through the liturgy, the Mass, the Breviary. The Martyrology, and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
You must believe these teachings. To reject them is heresy. Heresy severs you from the Church, and is a straight ticket to Hell.
Do you really want that? Are the Dimonds and Feeney that important to you to go to Hell for?
-
You state that you have not adopted heresy. Then state clearly for all on this forum that you believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Those are not dogmas, fool; they are errors rooted in speculative theology.
Not once have any of you demonstrated how BoB and BoD have been revealed.
Baptism of Desire was taught by the Council of Trent
It was not.
-
Do you really want that? Are the Dimonds and Feeney that important to you to go to Hell for?
No the dogma EENS is that important to me. Being Catholic is that important to me. Why do you dishonestly persist in the stupid Dimonds & Feeney thing? This has nothing to do with either of them.
-
Baptism of Desire was taught ... by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
It was not.
Baptism of Blood is explicitly taught through the liturgy, the Mass, the Breviary. The Martyrology, and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
It is not.
Any further questions?
-
Baptism of Desire was taught ... by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
It was not.
Baptism of Blood is explicitly taught through the liturgy, the Mass, the Breviary. The Martyrology, and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
It is not.
Any further questions?
You are in denial. All heretics deny Catholic sources. I hope you recant before your judgment.
-
Do you really want that? Are the Dimonds and Feeney that important to you to go to Hell for?
No the dogma EENS is that important to me. Being Catholic is that important to me. Why do you dishonestly persist in the stupid Dimonds & Feeney thing? This has nothing to do with either of them.
Yes it does have much to do with them. They are notorious deniers of Catholic teaching, and you have joined them, as least in spirit. You have made yourself one of them.
You have not been careful with your salvation. Catholics are forbidden to deny or doubt any of the teachings of the Church. You have allowed yourself to fall for this temptation. You should recant and repent.
-
You state that you have not adopted heresy. Then state clearly for all on this forum that you believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Those are not dogmas, fool; they are errors rooted in speculative theology.
Not once have any of you demonstrated how BoB and BoD have been revealed.
Baptism of Desire was taught by the Council of Trent
It was not.
Yes it was. Don't take my word for it, learn from men far greater than both of us. Learn from a Doctor of the Church who stated it was taught by Trent. Learn from numerous other theologians who also cite Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
It is only you, the Dimonds, and the Feeneyites that deny the plain truth if the text. The Council of Trent explicitly and clearly teaches Baptism of Desire. To deny it, shows that you cannot read, or you are dishonest.
-
The Council of Trent explicitly and clearly teaches Baptism of Desire.
NOT IT DOES NOT.
To deny it, shows that you cannot read, or you are dishonest.
Then it should have been easy for you to refute the three paragraphs I wrote which outline why it does not teach BoD. I can read very well, thank you, including Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Instead it's just met with silence and the mindless gratuitous repetition of your assertion that it does. Amazing that St. Robert Bellarmine did not cite Trent in support of his tentative position that catechumens who die without Baptism can be saved, instead relying upon the rock solid argument of "it would seem too harsh". He must have missed the memo about how Trent taught BoD.
-
The Council of Trent explicitly and clearly teaches Baptism of Desire.
NOT IT DOES NOT.
To deny it, shows that you cannot read, or you are dishonest.
Then it should have been easy for you to refute the three paragraphs I wrote which outline why it does not teach BoD. I can read very well, thank you, including Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Instead it's just met with silence and the mindless gratuitous repetition of your assertion that it does. Amazing that St. Robert Bellarmine did not cite Trent in support of his tentative position that catechumens who die without Baptism can be saved, instead relying upon the rock solid argument of "it would seem too harsh". He must have missed the memo about how Trent taught BoD.
Your denying it does not make it true. I have read it in the Council docuмents, it is there. St. Alphonsus stated it was there. Many other theologians stated it was there. It is there, and your denying it will not make it go away.
As I said, the Council of Trent explicitly and clearly taught Baptism of Desire. It is de fide. Your denials are worthless. The truth is there for any who wish to read it.
-
The Church did not teach at Trent that desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation. Advocates of BOD bring out a passage that is actually dealing with the first stages of Justification, not Salvation. The Latin word "desiderium" is nowhere to be found in any of the docuмents of Trent. The original word that in modern English translations is understood by "desire" is actually the Latin word "votum" which was used by the Church at Trent and again, it had nothing to do with efficacy of it for Baptism, let alone Salvation. It was only describing an element necessary for Justification. There is nothing in Trent to support the belief of BOD for the catechumen, let alone a member of a false religion.
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the entire cycle of Catholic doctrine and yet by a single word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple Faith. He who dissents in a single point from divinely -revealed truth absolutely rejects all Faith"
Pope Leo XIII
-
The Church did not teach at Trent that desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation. Advocates of BOD bring out a passage that is actually dealing with the first stages of Justification, not Salvation. The Latin word "desiderium" is nowhere to be found in any of the docuмents of Trent. The original word that in modern English translations is understood by "desire" is actually the Latin word "votum" which was used by the Church at Trent and again, it had nothing to do with efficacy of it for Baptism, let alone Salvation. It was only describing an element necessary for Justification. There is nothing in Trent to support the belief of BOD for the catechumen, let alone a member of a false religion.
Cantarella,
This is made up theology. No one except Feeneyites and the Dimonds make these claims. You should avoid learning theology from these men, they have no clue what they are talking about.
Baptism of Desire is explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent.
St. Alphonsus taught:
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 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.”[/b]
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
-
Amazing that St. Robert Bellarmine did not cite Trent in support of his tentative position that catechumens who die without Baptism can be saved, instead relying upon the rock solid argument of "it would seem too harsh". He must have missed the memo about how Trent taught BoD.
My goodness, where did you learn such a thing?
De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity .... it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire"
You people really need to stop doing this. You're confusing yourself and the many faithful Catholics who read.
-
Amazing that St. Robert Bellarmine did not cite Trent in support of his tentative position that catechumens who die without Baptism can be saved, instead relying upon the rock solid argument of "it would seem too harsh". He must have missed the memo about how Trent taught BoD.
My goodness, where did you learn such a thing?
De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity .... it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire"
You people really need to stop doing this. You're confusing yourself and the many faithful Catholics who read.
The problem has always been that they do not cite any sources and actually despise these sources, or when they do cite a source, it is incomplete or misapplied.
The blind leading the blind; a situation that could and should be stopped by Matthew.
-
Amazing that St. Robert Bellarmine did not cite Trent in support of his tentative position that catechumens who die without Baptism can be saved, instead relying upon the rock solid argument of "it would seem too harsh". He must have missed the memo about how Trent taught BoD.
My goodness, where did you learn such a thing?
De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity .... it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire"
You people really need to stop doing this. You're confusing yourself and the many faithful Catholics who read.
OK, if that quote is authentic, then I admit my mistake. See, I'm honest enough to go where the truth leads me. Unlike you guys (I'll get back to that later).
I'm of course skeptical of internet-based copy-paste jobs, and the ellipses right before the mention of Trent increase my skepticism; and of course the quotation could be based on some interpolation from a footnote.
But if it is in fact authentic, then I stand corrected on this point.
My comment was based on where St. Robert addresses the question of "Whether catechumens who die before receiving Baptism can be saved ..." question. He relied on the argument that "it would seem too harsh" and did not cite Trent.
Why was St. Robert having problems with this question?
The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men UNITED IN THE PROFESSION OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN FAITH AND IN THE COMMUNION OF THE SAME SACRAMENTS, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. THE SECOND PART EXCLUDES THE CATECHUMENS and excommunicated, SINCE THE FORMER ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE SACRAMENTS and the latter are excluded from them…"[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75]
This very Traditional post Trent ecclesiology was against the Protestant error of bifurcating the Church into visible and invisible aspects. St. Robert specifically states that the Church "EXCLUDES CATECHUMENS". So when dealing with the Catechumens, this posed problems. He ended up saying that CATECHUMENS are "in the vestibule of the Church" (making a metaphor with a church building). Pretty weak tortured theological gymnastics, really, and hardly convincing.
BoD poses difficulties and problems for Traditional Catholic ecclesiology which is why, apart from the fact that there's no proof for its existence, I reject BoD/BoB even for catechumens.
-
Suprema Haec absolutely GUTS Traditional Catholic ecclesiology as per the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine above. In fact, it vindicates Protestant ecclesiology of bifurcation (the "twofold" ecclesiology rejected by Bellarmine) into a body and a soul. And it's this bifurcation that renders the entire Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology entirely valid.
If various non Catholics of good will are in fact in the Church, then suddenly there's a part of the Church that isn't in this visible society we call the Catholic Church as detailed by St. Robert Bellarmine. Suddenly there are degrees of union or communion with this subsistent core. Suddenly good will becomes salvific, and if good will is salvific, then Religious Liberty follows, since everyone has a right to please God and to save his soul. Everything in V2 comes from this undermining Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
If Suprema Haec is legitimate true Catholic teaching, then so is Vatican II. You guys don't have the slightest shred of honesty to admit this.
Suprema Haec was brought to us by the same heretics who produced Vatican II just a few years later.
-
Suprema Haec absolutely GUTS Traditional Catholic ecclesiology as per the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine above. In fact, it vindicates Protestant ecclesiology of bifurcation (the "twofold" ecclesiology rejected by Bellarmine) into a body and a soul. And it's this bifurcation that renders the entire Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology entirely valid.
If various non Catholics of good will are in fact in the Church, then suddenly there's a part of the Church that isn't in this visible society we call the Catholic Church as detailed by St. Robert Bellarmine. Suddenly there are degrees of union or communion with this subsistent core. Suddenly good will becomes salvific, and if good will is salvific, then Religious Liberty follows, since everyone has a right to please God and to save his soul. Everything in V2 comes from this undermining Suprema Haec ecclesiology.
If Suprema Haec is legitimate true Catholic teaching, then so is Vatican II. You guys don't have the slightest shred of honesty to admit this.
Suprema Haec was brought to us by the same heretics who produced Vatican II just a few years later.
The possibility of becoming a member of the Church "invisibly" is an odious diabolical lie. Adherents of BOD believe one can be interiorly united to the Church and all sacraments can be taken invisibly with the right inward disposition. They admit it is better to be a visible member of the church, yes, but if you for some reason are unable to, then you could also be an invisible member and be saved. It is kind of a shortcut to Heaven. That is to say that Baptism is optional for some which is infallibly condemned. A shortcut to the Church Triumphant without actually being part of the Church Militant is simply not possible. Christ instituted only ONE way of salvation. Everyone that is not inserted into Christ visibly perishes. Baptism is the only way one can become a member of His Body. Christ founded the Church, which was to reveal the "one and only path to salvation". Her most fundamental reason for beign.
-
The possibility of becoming a member of the Church "invisibly" is an odious diabolical lie.
Nobody has said this. You use the word member where even Pius XII did not, and he was the one who gave us a definition of membership.
-
OK, if that quote is authentic, then I admit my mistake. See, I'm honest enough to go where the truth leads me.
Very good, Ladislaus. That is truly commendable.
Unlike you guys (I'll get back to that later).
But was this bit really necessary?
Coming back to the subject of this thread, at the least you have to concede that whatever Canon Law contains is infallibly safe, if not infallibly true. It requires at the least the so-called obsequium religiosum if not an assent proximate to the faith. Therefore, and those who wish to question it should, at the least, do so diffidently. And those who accept what the law states and what its direct implications are have nothing to answer for. You have yourself said something similar in the past.
Now, the next question was whether Trent teaches BOD - St. Robert, as we saw, is just one of several who clearly thinks it does. Do you have any source that denies that Trent taught BOD?
Finally, to the third question about catechumens, does the Church exclude or include them - it's like this, catechumens who have perfect charity are inside the Church and those who do not are not. But the Church in the external forum does not judge who may have this or not, and so Her law simply, as a matter of presumption, considers them separated. But someone who has perfect charity and contrition is truly inside the Church.
By way of anology (and St. Robert himself uses this explanation elsewhere), excommunicantes are presumed to be separated from the Church, externally and in the law. But they can recover grace by a true repentance and contrition even before formal absolution, and then they would be inside the Church at that time.
I ask you, surely you would not tell me baptized Catholic excommunicantes are also excluded from salvation, even though they repent internally, and die before reaching ecclesiastical authority to lift it?
Yet what you have insisted on ecclesiology would lead you to the conclusion that these are lost. Because these latter are also presumed to be separated from the mass of the faithful, in the external forum and thus in law.
The ecclesiology of St. Robert by the way was, for the most part, approved and authorized by Pope Pius XII in MCC as the Church's own.
I will comment on the Vatican II issue in detail in a subsequent post, perhaps a new thread.
-
OK, if that quote is authentic, then I admit my mistake. See, I'm honest enough to go where the truth leads me.
Very good, Ladislaus. That is truly commendable.
Unlike you guys (I'll get back to that later).
But was this bit really necessary?
I'm afraid so. I have not yet seen anyone of you make an honest admission. In the best case, you would ignore a point I'm making, such as showing that Suprema Haec ecclesiology leads logically to Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology. When I put the question out there, it's ignored. Basically I've come to the conclusion that none of you will change your minds on the subject, and I would have stopped posting long ago except for the possible third party lurkers.
Or when I point out that all the cited authorities refer to BoD for catechumens, that's ignored.
-
Amazing that St. Robert Bellarmine did not cite Trent in support of his tentative position that catechumens who die without Baptism can be saved, instead relying upon the rock solid argument of "it would seem too harsh". He must have missed the memo about how Trent taught BoD.
My goodness, where did you learn such a thing?
De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity .... it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire"
You people really need to stop doing this. You're confusing yourself and the many faithful Catholics who read.
OK, if that quote is authentic, then I admit my mistake. See, I'm honest enough to go where the truth leads me. Unlike you guys (I'll get back to that later).
I'm of course skeptical of internet-based copy-paste jobs, and the ellipses right before the mention of Trent increase my skepticism; and of course the quotation could be based on some interpolation from a footnote.
But if it is in fact authentic, then I stand corrected on this point.
My comment was based on where St. Robert addresses the question of "Whether catechumens who die before receiving Baptism can be saved ..." question. He relied on the argument that "it would seem too harsh" and did not cite Trent.
Why was St. Robert having problems with this question?
The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men UNITED IN THE PROFESSION OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN FAITH AND IN THE COMMUNION OF THE SAME SACRAMENTS, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. THE SECOND PART EXCLUDES THE CATECHUMENS and excommunicated, SINCE THE FORMER ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE SACRAMENTS and the latter are excluded from them…"[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75]
This very Traditional post Trent ecclesiology was against the Protestant error of bifurcating the Church into visible and invisible aspects. St. Robert specifically states that the Church "EXCLUDES CATECHUMENS". So when dealing with the Catechumens, this posed problems. He ended up saying that CATECHUMENS are "in the vestibule of the Church" (making a metaphor with a church building). Pretty weak tortured theological gymnastics, really, and hardly convincing.
BoD poses difficulties and problems for Traditional Catholic ecclesiology which is why, apart from the fact that there's no proof for its existence, I reject BoD/BoB even for catechumens.
The quote from St. Robert Bellarmine is authentic. Read it for yourself HERE (http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz4-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=De+Controversiis+De+Baptismo,+Lib.+I,+Cap.+VI&source=bl&ots=c4wyDUILj_&sig=cVQCYxILrEJLjJCfLNgRL7ZekMA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q0o4U_jRKtPRsAT-goCgBg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=De%20Controversiis%20De%20Baptismo%2C%20Lib.%20I%2C%20Cap.%20VI&f=false)
The real question is whether you will finally admit that you have been completely wrong on this, and finally admit that the Council of Trent explicitly and clearly taught Baptism of Desire.
Now you have the testimony of two Doctors of the Church, the Holy Office, and countless theologians who all cite the Council of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire. Trent taught it, I have read it, many others have read it, it's right there and everyone knows it except the Feeneyites and Dimondites who reject this obvious fact.
When you did your private research and learned this position on your own, you obviously missed a lot.
-
Trent taught it, I have read it, many others have read i
No, I don't agree that Trent taught BoD. I used to think that and so I used to believe in BoD for catechumens. When I actually read Trent, however, the whole thing, it became very obvious that Trent did not teach BoD. I detailed my arguments in several paragraphs on another thread, and none of you have been able to refuse the slightest bit of it. Until you can refute that, I stand by my interpretation of Trent. But you haven't tried. Because you can't.
-
Trent taught it, I have read it, many others have read i
No, I don't agree that Trent taught BoD. I used to think that and so I used to believe in BoD for catechumens. When I actually read Trent, however, the whole thing, it became very obvious that Trent did not teach BoD. I detailed my arguments in several paragraphs on another thread, and none of you have been able to refuse the slightest bit of it. Until you can refute that, I stand by my interpretation of Trent. But you haven't tried. Because you can't.
Then you think your reading comprehension of Trent is greater than Pope Pius XII, the Cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office, 2 Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians who all cite the Council of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
I have read it and I see it as clear as day. I also know that I am nothing but an ant standing next to elephants (the Doctors and theologians), when it comes to theology. The arrogance and pride of Dimond and Feeney followers is so obvious to all except them.
-
I have read it and I see it as clear as day.
You see what you want to see. Take the Pius XII discussion to the other thread.
If it's clear as day, then you should be able to easily refute my arguments in favor of my reading of Trent.
-
I have read it and I see it as clear as day.
You see what you want to see. Take the Pius XII discussion to the other thread.
If it's clear as day, then you should be able to easily refute my arguments in favor of my reading of Trent.
For starters, I have Pope Pius XII, the Cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office, two Doctors of the Church and countless theologians who all know that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
To support your ideas, you have your own private research, the writings of the Dimonds, and The Feeneyites. None of you have any business challenging the teaching of the Church. None of you has been trained by the Church or have your writings been approved. You are the blind leading the blind.
-
I'm afraid so. I have not yet seen anyone of you make an honest admission.
Show me any mistake I have made, and I know I can and do make several, and I will gladly admit it, as you have.
Your whole post here is unreasonable. You raised so many different issues, I answered as many as would be possible without completely digressing from this thread topic.
And to those three points, you responded nothing. And it's not the first time either. I could make the same accusation of you with much more justice.
In the best case, you would ignore a point I'm making, such as showing that Suprema Haec ecclesiology leads logically to Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology.
This charge is simply too massive to deal with in one post, and if memory serves, I answered it in part when it was first made on another thread. I propose we start a new thread to deal with exclusively this topic, I'll answer anything you like there. Or direct me to an existing thread you have about Vatican II ecclesiology.
Basically I've come to the conclusion that none of you will change your minds on the subject
Catholics who have learned theology well, says St. Basil, will not alter even iota from the doctrines they have been taught.
Or when I point out that all the cited authorities refer to BoD for catechumens, that's ignored.
Leaving aside that one thread cannot deal with everything, as we've said, it is necessary to establish the doctrine of explicit baptism of desire, before we proceed to implicit baptism of desire.
But, what if we could cite an authority like this, teaching implicit desire of baptism?
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
But what would be the point? You'll just give the standard response we already know too well, to such authorities.
-
Is it not possible that St. Robert Bellarmine simply erred on the subject of BOD?, after all I read somewhere that he had mistaken opinions on Limbo too, just like our Great Angelic Doctor, St Thomas, centuries before, had erroneous views on Our Lady's Conception. See, that is the beauty of infallibility! When everything else fails and collapses, we have the promise that the Church Herself cannot err since Truth does not change. After Vatican I, in particular, we have more clarity about which docuмents are infallible, free from human error, and which are not.
Everyone knows that saints did contradict themselves and even taught errors at one point of their lives. These errors were later condemned by the Church. Saints and theologians teachings have merit as long as they do not contradict a truth fallen from Heaven. The infallibly authority of the Catholic Church to teach humanity the truths of God's revelation reside in the Pope himself and in solemn definitions that are in total agreement with all bishops. Not theologians and not saints. It is even prideful to assume that theologians can have more authority than the Church Herself. Again, we find opinions and theological speculations by mere humans against truly Divine revelation.
-
Finally, to the third question about catechumens, does the Church exclude or include them - it's like this, catechumens who have perfect charity are inside the Church and those who do not are not. But the Church in the external forum does not judge who may have this or not, and so Her law simply, as a matter of presumption, considers them separated. But someone who has perfect charity and contrition is truly inside the Church.
This cannot be.
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
Christ founded the Church, in doing so, He revealed the "one and only path to salvation". You are in total denial of the absolute necessity of Sacraments for Salvation. The infallible Council of Trent declared what was needed for Justification and Baptism, and actually anathemized anyone who would hold that the sacraments (the outward signs of grace, instituted by Christ Lord) were not necessary for salvation.
Not only that, you deny the salutary dogma of "Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus". Catholics are obliged to believe in dogmas as they are written. From my other thread:
"Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative symbols. The Church understands her dogmas precisely by the very words she has once declared. Loyal Catholics must know that Catholic dogmatic statements are immutable truths of Heaven not subject for accommodation to suit the current world needs. Pope Pius X solemnly condemned this method of interpretation employed by Modernists, in which dogmas have a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.
You deny the very reason of existence for the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Through Her only is that human beings can be saved. VISIBLY, EXPLICITLY. That is how the Church always understood and taught the dogma of EENS before Modernism. Catholics everywhere always knew that only Catholics go to Heaven. You seek to prove that the sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation and therefore, that there is salvation outside the church.
-
Is it not possible that St. Robert Bellarmine simply erred on the subject of BOD?, after all I read somewhere that he had mistaken opinions on Limbo too, just like our Great Angelic Doctor, St Thomas, centuries before, had erroneous views on Our Lady's Conception. See, that is the beauty of infallibility! When everything else fails and collapses, we have the promise that the Church Herself cannot err since Truth does not change. After Vatican I, in particular, we have more clarity about which docuмents are infallible, free from human error, and which are not.
Everyone knows that saints did contradict themselves and even taught errors at one point of their lives. These errors were later condemned by the Church. Saints and theologians teachings have merit as long as they do not contradict a truth fallen from Heaven. The infallibly authority of the Catholic Church to teach humanity the truths of God's revelation reside in the Pope himself and in solemn definitions that are in total agreement with all bishops. Not theologians and not saints. It is even prideful to assume that theologians can have more authority than the Church Herself. Again, we find opinions and theological speculations by mere humans against truly Divine revelation.
There is no chance that he is wrong. Baptism of Desire has been taught by the Council of Trent, that's why he and many others all cite it. BoD is also part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, another proof of its infallibility.
A Catholic must believe it. To refuse belief in Baptism of Desire is heresy.
-
Trent taught it, I have read it, many others have read i
No, I don't agree that Trent taught BoD. I used to think that and so I used to believe in BoD for catechumens. When I actually read Trent, however, the whole thing, it became very obvious that Trent did not teach BoD. I detailed my arguments in several paragraphs on another thread, and none of you have been able to refuse the slightest bit of it. Until you can refute that, I stand by my interpretation of Trent. But you haven't tried. Because you can't.
Then you think your reading comprehension of Trent is greater than Pope Pius XII, the Cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office, 2 Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians who all cite the Council of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
I have read it and I see it as clear as day. I also know that I am nothing but an ant standing next to elephants (the Doctors and theologians), when it comes to theology. The arrogance and pride of Dimond and Feeney followers is so obvious to all except them.
Well obviously Ambrose, there is something inherently wrong with your reasoning since you and all BODers cannot muster up within yourselves enough courage to even consider defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - but to continually start threads and repeatedly champion salvation without any sacrament at all, THAT you are very good at.
Says it all.
-
Is it not possible that St. Robert Bellarmine simply erred on the subject of BOD?, after all I read somewhere that he had mistaken opinions on Limbo too, just like our Great Angelic Doctor, St Thomas, centuries before, had erroneous views on Our Lady's Conception. See, that is the beauty of infallibility! When everything else fails and collapses, we have the promise that the Church Herself cannot err since Truth does not change. After Vatican I, in particular, we have more clarity about which docuмents are infallible, free from human error, and which are not.
Everyone knows that saints did contradict themselves and even taught errors at one point of their lives. These errors were later condemned by the Church. Saints and theologians teachings have merit as long as they do not contradict a truth fallen from Heaven. The infallibly authority of the Catholic Church to teach humanity the truths of God's revelation reside in the Pope himself and in solemn definitions that are in total agreement with all bishops. Not theologians and not saints. It is even prideful to assume that theologians can have more authority than the Church Herself. Again, we find opinions and theological speculations by mere humans against truly Divine revelation.
There is no chance that he is wrong. Baptism of Desire has been taught by the Council of Trent, that's why he and many others all cite it. BoD is also part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, another proof of its infallibility.
A Catholic must believe it. To refuse belief in Baptism of Desire is heresy.
You say some pretty stupid things Ambrose - but to say Trent taught a BOD is, IMO, the stupidest.
Trent teaches about the sacraments, what they are, what they do, why we need them and how they are a necessity for our salvation. They are defending and preserving the sacraments, not making them superfluous as you do.
Only BODers constantly claim that Trent's canon stating "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;...is anathema" is decreeing that the sacraments are superfluous, and that no sacrament is necessary unto salvation.
Only BODers constantly claim that Trent's canon stating "...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. means that no sacrament is necessary and teaches a BOD - that the desire thereof through faith alone rewards salvation.
Only BODers constantly claim that Trent's decree stating "If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." means that the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.
Just stop the stupidity already.
Aren't you the least bit afraid that when it's your last hour, you will receive from God the same thing you gave, namely, no last sacrament?
-
Baptism of Desire has been taught by the Council of Trent, that's why he and many others all cite it
What's it matter? You BODers believe that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
You BODers are sick in the head. You cling on to your ONLY "dogma that teaches BOD", which is not clear, as anyone with eyes to see can see. It is undenialble that Trent does not clearly teach baptism of desire of the catechumen. Meanwhile, the clearest dogma on EENS from Florence that reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and is not opposed by any Father, Doctor, saint or council, the need to believe explicitly in the Incarnartion (Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, that you deny!
The BODers say this unclear dogmatic decree means that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity:
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
The BODers say that this CLEAR dogmatic decree does not mean that someone has to have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved, that it does not mean what it clearly says:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
BODers are sick in the head, they have lost the faith or their marbles.
-
Is it not possible that St. Robert Bellarmine simply erred on the subject of BOD?
It was claimed the passage in Trent on BOD was allegedly doubtful, even that St. Robert did not rely on it. Hence to answer that, it was shown that St. Robert knew and taught that the passage in Trent proves that baptism is necessary in fact or in desire. Every single authority besides these great Doctors has read and understood Trent in the same way, including St. Charles Borromeo and several others.
No one before Fr. Feeney has done otherwise.
You can't deny this without sin, Cantarella. It's also in canon law, as the OP shows. And if any of you folk actually had the temerity to tell St. Pius X or Benedict XV that the Code they approved and authorized contained heresy against Trent, you'd have found yourselves anathematized before you could say BOD.
You BODers believe that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized
That the desire for baptism can be implicit is taught by St. Pius X. If you have the gall to accuse a Pope who is also a canonized Saint of heresy, you will be guilty of schism yourself.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
-
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. They are denying clear dogma.
-
Trent taught it, I have read it, many others have read i
No, I don't agree that Trent taught BoD. I used to think that and so I used to believe in BoD for catechumens. When I actually read Trent, however, the whole thing, it became very obvious that Trent did not teach BoD. I detailed my arguments in several paragraphs on another thread, and none of you have been able to refuse the slightest bit of it. Until you can refute that, I stand by my interpretation of Trent. But you haven't tried. Because you can't.
Then you think your reading comprehension of Trent is greater than Pope Pius XII, the Cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office, 2 Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians who all cite the Council of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
I have read it and I see it as clear as day. I also know that I am nothing but an ant standing next to elephants (the Doctors and theologians), when it comes to theology. The arrogance and pride of Dimond and Feeney followers is so obvious to all except them.
Well obviously Ambrose, there is something inherently wrong with your reasoning since you and all BODers cannot muster up within yourselves enough courage to even consider defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - but to continually start threads and repeatedly champion salvation without any sacrament at all, THAT you are very good at.
Says it all.
You can twist what I say, but it does not make it true. I do not champion "salvation without any sacrament." I defend the teaching of the Catholic Church, as all Catholics must do.
-
Baptism of Desire has been taught by the Council of Trent
What's it matter? You BODers believe that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.
You BODers are sick in the head. You cling on to your ONLY "dogma that teaches BOD", which is not clear at all, as anyone with eyes to see can see. It is undeniable that Trent does not clearly teach baptism of desire of the catechumen. Nowhere does it mentions what happens to a catechumen who dies unbaptized. Meanwhile, the clearest dogma on EENS from Florence that reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and is not opposed by any Father, Doctor, saint or council, the need to believe explicitly in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, that you deny!
The BODers say this unclear dogmatic decree means that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity:
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
The BODers say that this CLEAR dogmatic decree does not mean that someone has to have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved, that it does not mean what it clearly says:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
BODers are sick in the head, they have lost the faith or their marbles.
-
Let's find some common ground to stand on, from which we might survey the extremes.
The Church is missionary by Divine Order.
The Church teaches Truths that are Divine in origin.
These Truths are manifest in beliefs and practices which require assent -
- an individual is either aware of these Truths or not
- an individual aware of these Truths either accepts them or rejects them
- an individual who accepts these Truths is baptized with water
- an individual who accepts these Truths but dies before being baptized with water (through no fault of their own) is regarded as having been Baptized by Desire.
Do we agree to this point?
-
Trent taught it, I have read it, many others have read i
No, I don't agree that Trent taught BoD. I used to think that and so I used to believe in BoD for catechumens. When I actually read Trent, however, the whole thing, it became very obvious that Trent did not teach BoD. I detailed my arguments in several paragraphs on another thread, and none of you have been able to refuse the slightest bit of it. Until you can refute that, I stand by my interpretation of Trent. But you haven't tried. Because you can't.
Then you think your reading comprehension of Trent is greater than Pope Pius XII, the Cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office, 2 Doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians who all cite the Council of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire.
I have read it and I see it as clear as day. I also know that I am nothing but an ant standing next to elephants (the Doctors and theologians), when it comes to theology. The arrogance and pride of Dimond and Feeney followers is so obvious to all except them.
Well obviously Ambrose, there is something inherently wrong with your reasoning since you and all BODers cannot muster up within yourselves enough courage to even consider defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - but to continually start threads and repeatedly champion salvation without any sacrament at all, THAT you are very good at.
Says it all.
You can twist what I say, but it does not make it true. I do not champion "salvation without any sacrament." I defend the teaching of the Catholic Church, as all Catholics must do.
You can't even be honest for a minute with yourself.
A BOD is not a sacrament, and you know BOD is not a sacrament - but you have created dozens of threads and tons of posts championing salvation via a BOD, yet you have the gall to say: I do not champion "salvation without any sacrament."
From now on, replace the term "BOD" with "no sacrament at all" (NSAA), let's give that a try and see if that wakes you up. - AGREED?
You then falsely claim to defend Church teaching: "I defend the teaching of the Catholic Church, as all Catholics must do." As if the Church teaches salvation via NSAA - this is another lie unique to you and all NSAAers..
I have asked you for over 3 months to do what the Church does, what Trent did - defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - when are you going to actually do "as all Catholics must do" and actually "defend the teaching of the Catholic Church" as you claim?
-
From now on, replace the term "BOD" with "no sacrament at all" (NSAA), let's give that a try and see if that wakes you up. - AGREED?
You then falsely claim to defend Church teaching: "I defend the teaching of the Catholic Church, as all Catholics must do." As if the Church teaches salvation via NSAA - this is another lie unique to you and all NSAAers..
Excellent! and how about also a NSAAite? Baptism of desire is really a euphemism for no sacrament at all, no Church at all, no Cathocism at all, no Christ at all, no Trinity at all.
-
Saint Robert Bellarmine's Definition of the Church
"Now, our opinion is that the Church is only one, and not two; and that one and true [Church] is the assembly of men gathered in the profession of the same Christian faith, and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the reign of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From which definition, one can easily gather which men pertain to the Church, and indeed those who do not pertain to her. For there are three parts of this definition:
1. The profession of the true faith,
2. The communion of the sacraments, and
3. Subjection to the legitimate shepherd, the Roman Pontiff.
By reason of the first part all infidels are excluded, both those who were never in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans; and those who were, and went back, such as heretics and apostates. By reason of the second part catechumens and excommunicates are excluded, the former because they are not admitted to the communion of the sacraments, and the latter because they are cast out. By reason of the third part are excluded schismatics, who have faith and sacraments, but are not subject to the legitimate pastors, and therefore they profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [of the Church]. But all others are included, even the reprobate, the wicked, and the impious.
"And so there is this difference between our opinion and all others, that all others require internal virtues to constitute someone in the Church, and on that account they make the true Church invisible; but we, although we believe that all virtues, such as faith, hope, charity, etc., are found in the Church, yet that anyone can in some way be called a part of the true Church, about which Scripture speaks, we do not believe any internal virtues are required, but only external profession of the faith, and communion of the sacraments, which are perceived by the senses. For the Church is a assembly of men as visible and palpable as is the assembly of the people of Rome, or the kingdom of France, or the republic of Venice."
Was then a contradiction in St Robert Bellarmine writings? :scratchchin:
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30785&min=40#p2)
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
How can the absence of something be supplied by something else?
This quote from the catechism says that martyrdom can supply the absence of baptism.
Why would anyone want to be supplied the absence of baptism?
If you want to cook breakfast and don't have any eggs, would a shopping trip SUPPLY your absence of eggs? Or would a shopping trip REMEDY your absence of eggs?
A platoon commander running out of ammunition, when asking for supplies, would he say that he is requisitioning to be supplied an absence of bullets?
The choice of words is highly ambiguous, at least. This goes to show that catechisms are not a source of doctrinal definition. They are only a tool for teaching, and can therefore contain errors that the censors overlooked.
.
-
In the best case, you would ignore a point I'm making, such as showing that Suprema Haec ecclesiology leads logically to Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology. When I put the question out there, it's ignored. Basically I've come to the conclusion that none of you will change your minds on the subject, and I would have stopped posting long ago except for the possible third party lurkers.
Is this still ignored?
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30785&min=40#p2)
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
How can the absence of something be supplied by something else?
This quote from the catechism says that martyrdom can supply the absence of baptism.
Why would anyone want to be supplied the absence of baptism?
If you want to cook breakfast and don't have any eggs, would a shopping trip SUPPLY your absence of eggs? Or would a shopping trip REMEDY your absence of eggs?
A platoon commander running out of ammunition, when asking for supplies, would he say that he is requisitioning to be supplied an absence of bullets?
The choice of words is highly ambiguous, at least. This goes to show that catechisms are not a source of doctrinal definition. They are only a tool for teaching, and can therefore contain errors that the censors overlooked.
.
Excellent point Neil! That's an awesome catch on modernist double speak!
"The absence of Baptism". HA!
So what that is saying cannot really be said to be error, and is actually completely true - if, as you point out, we do a careful reading of it.
IOW, a BOD / BOB supply "the absence", not the sacrament - IOW, a BOB / BOD supply nothing at all.
THIS Agrees with infallible teaching of Trent.
-
If you study the aftermath of Trent, phrases such as "without Baptism" (as used by St. Thomas) were replaced by "receiving Baptism in voto". St. Robert Bellarmine popularized the distinction between receiving Baptism in re vs. in voto. Why? Because Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism was necessary for salvation, so you could no longer get away with saying that you can be saved "without the Sacrament of Baptism". Yet modern BoDers persist in saying that. You really need to start saying that one needs to receive (the fruits of) the Sacrament of Baptism via desire.
What the post-Trent theologians did was to say that Baptism would still be the instrumental cause of justification (as defined by Trent) acting via the desire. But most of you don't even say that. See how the Pope insisted that perfect contrition could not restore to a state of justification without the desire for Confession so that Confession would be the instrumental cause of the justification by way of desire for it (a desire which must of course be consummated as it were by the actual reception of the Sacrament).
Stubborn is quite correct. You have to stop saying things that imply people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism because that's heretical since Trent. You must phrase things in such a way that you still consider the Sacrament of Baptism the instrumental cause of justification even if you claim this can happen in voto.
Ambrose keeps protesting that he's never denied the necessity of Baptism but even AFTER I corrected him he keeps using language that implies that Baptism is necessary not by necessity of means but by necessity of precept.
If you wish to avoid heresy, you need to say that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means and that it acts as the instrumental cause of justification even in Baptism of Desire situations.
If you guys could at least agree to that, then we could move on to the next phase of the discussion.
-
.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
How can the absence of something be supplied by something else?
This quote from the catechism says that martyrdom can supply the absence of baptism.
Why would anyone want to be supplied the absence of baptism?
.
Excellent point Neil! That's an awesome catch on modernist double speak!
"The absence of Baptism". HA!
So what that is saying cannot really be said to be error, and is actually completely true - if, as you point out, we do a careful reading of it.
IOW, a BOD / BOB supply "the absence", not the sacrament - IOW, a BOB / BOD supply nothing at all.
THIS Agrees with infallible teaching of Trent.
Really? Seriously, re-read the catechism post. It says, "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by...", in other words, "If baptism is missing, the baptism can be supplied by...". This is really quite a display. I don't think I have ever seen anything so misguided.
-
I would assume that the "absence" thing is just bad translation. I'm guessing that what was meant is that the absence of Baptism is "made up for" by martyrdom. Of course even that is a very bad formulation, as per what I stated above. People cannot be saved in the absence of Baptism or without Baptism. Nor should it be said that BoB replaces or takes the place of Baptism. After Trent's dogmatic definitions regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for justification, you have to say that even in martyrdom it's the Sacrament of Baptism still working (through the martyrdom) to justify. You must say that the Sacrament of Baptism continues to be the instrumental cause of justification. Otherwise, you're in the heresy of denying the necessity of the Sacraments for justification.
-
Really? Seriously, re-read the catechism post. It says, "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by...", in other words, "If baptism is missing, the baptism can be supplied by...". This is really quite a display. I don't think I have ever seen anything so misguided.
If you wish to avoid heresy, you need to say that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means and that it acts as the instrumental cause of justification even in Baptism of Desire situations.
If you guys could at least agree to that, then we could move on to the next phase of the discussion.
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
-
Saint Robert Bellarmine's Definition of the Church
Now, our opinion is that the Church is only one, and not two; and that one and true [Church] is the assembly of men gathered in the profession of the same Christian faith, and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the reign of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From which definition, one can easily gather which men pertain to the Church, and indeed those who do not pertain to her. For there are three parts of this definition:
1. The profession of the true faith,
2. The communion of the sacraments, and
3. Subjection to the legitimate shepherd, the Roman Pontiff.
By reason of the first part all infidels are excluded, both those who were never in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans; and those who were, and went back, such as heretics and apostates. By reason of the second part catechumens and excommunicates are excluded, the former because they are not admitted to the communion of the sacraments, and the latter because they are cast out. By reason of the third part are excluded schismatics, who have faith and sacraments, but are not subject to the legitimate pastors, and therefore they profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [of the Church]. But all others are included, even the reprobate, the wicked, and the impious.
THIS is Traditional Tridentine ecclesiology as formulated against the Protestant errors. It was the Protestants who created the bifurcated (two-fold) ecclesiology by falsely distinguishing between the body and the soul of the Church. And modern Faith of Desire vindicates Protestant ecclesiology.
So after this you could see St. Robert Bellarmine struggling with the catechumen problem. When he dealt with the catechumen question, he contradicted what he wrote above and said that the catechumens were "in the vestibule of the Church" (making a weak analogy with a church building). He was trying to say that they were in but not all the way in (per his ecclesiology), and that they were out but not all the way out. So catechumens suddenly only become "partially" excluded. That's the best he could do, but he had to show how catechumens were in this Tridentine ecclesiology. It's obvious that BoD causes problems with this ecclesiology.
FoD ecclesiology goes way beyond this by asserting that one can be saved (and therefore be in the Church) without ANY of the above three criteria, i.e. ...
without PROFESSION of the true faith (note that this excludes the purely "infused" theological virtue of faith model promoted by most FoDers); we're talking actual real PROFESSION of the true faith.
without the Sacraments
without subjection to the Roman Pontiff (Trent by the way explicitly teaches that catechumens are NOT subject to the Roman Pontiff since they had not received the Sacrament of Baptism)
Suddenly after the heretical Suprema Haec you don't need ANY of this in order to be saved and to be "within the Church" ... you merely need some vague general will to be conformed to God. And that's the heretical Protestant departure from Tridentine ecclesiology upon which all the Vatican II errors are founded.
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
It's obvious that you're flustered by this:
If you wish to avoid heresy, you need to say that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means and that it acts as the instrumental cause of justification even in Baptism of Desire situations.
If you guys could at least agree to that, then we could move on to the next phase of the discussion.
Do you agree to the bolded statement above? In the spirit of Our Lord's "yes yes, no no", a simple yes or no will suffice.
-
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
As per usual, when you have nothing else to say, you appeal for banning / silencing us.
-
.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
How can the absence of something be supplied by something else?
This quote from the catechism says that martyrdom can supply the absence of baptism.
Why would anyone want to be supplied the absence of baptism?
.
Excellent point Neil! That's an awesome catch on modernist double speak!
"The absence of Baptism". HA!
So what that is saying cannot really be said to be error, and is actually completely true - if, as you point out, we do a careful reading of it.
IOW, a BOD / BOB supply "the absence", not the sacrament - IOW, a BOB / BOD supply nothing at all.
THIS Agrees with infallible teaching of Trent.
Really? Seriously, re-read the catechism post. It says, "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by...", in other words, "If baptism is missing, the baptism can be supplied by...". This is really quite a display. I don't think I have ever seen anything so misguided.
The absence of baptism is the thing which can be supplied. Not baptism itself. Baptism is a "thing", the absence of a thing, is nothing. BOD/BOB supply nothing.
And again, Trent decreed that baptism was a necessity unto salvation.
Trent did not say the absence of baptism was a necessity - as the NSAAers keep preaching.
The catechism makes the dogma into a meaningless formula by stating the absence of a anything can be supplied by anything else.
Since a BOD/BOB are not sacraments, the absence of the sacrament remains absent via a BOD/BOB.
-
I would assume that the "absence" thing is just bad translation. I'm guessing that what was meant is that the absence of Baptism is "made up for" by martyrdom. Of course even that is a very bad formulation, as per what I stated above. People cannot be saved in the absence of Baptism or without Baptism. Nor should it be said that BoB replaces or takes the place of Baptism. After Trent's dogmatic definitions regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for justification, you have to say that even in martyrdom it's the Sacrament of Baptism still working (through the martyrdom) to justify. You must say that the Sacrament of Baptism continues to be the instrumental cause of justification. Otherwise, you're in the heresy of denying the necessity of the Sacraments for justification.
I looked at three different links - -they all have the same wording.
-
Do you believe that there's no salvation outside the Church?
Do you believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation?
But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Why can't any of you just simply assent to these truths? Whenever you're asked these questions it turns into a five-paragraph explanation of what the dogma REALLY means. that which is over and above [yea, yea: no, no] is of evil.
You guys ignore the directive of the Holy Office under St. Pius X regarding the question of how a Catholic is to respond when asked whether "Confucius" could have been saved. Answer: "No, Confucius was lost / damned." Not, "well, due to invincible ignorance, maybe if he generally wanted to conform his will that God the best he knew how, as long as he followed the natural law".
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
It's obvious that you're flustered by this:
If you wish to avoid heresy, you need to say that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means and that it acts as the instrumental cause of justification even in Baptism of Desire situations.
If you guys could at least agree to that, then we could move on to the next phase of the discussion.
Do you agree to the bolded statement above? In the spirit of Our Lord's "yes yes, no no", a simple yes or no will suffice.
You've got some nerve. Again, I am not some circus animal that is willing to jump through hoops at your command. I am not, and I repeat, not, going to play your game. The dishonesty displayed here is outrageous.
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
"Attack on our faith"?
THEN DEFEND IT YOU HYPOCRITE!
The Church is the one Christ founded to preserve, safeguard and defend Her truths and Her sacraments.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem. - CAN WE AGREE ON THIS?
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
"Attack on our faith"?
THEN DEFEND IT YOU HYPOCRITE!
The Church is the one Christ founded to preserve, safeguard and defend Her truths and Her sacraments.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem.
Oh, big man; Now I'm a hypocrite. Great. Thanks. bye.
-
You've got some nerve. Again, I am not some circus animal that is willing to jump through hoops at your command. I am not, and I repeat, not, going to play your game. The dishonesty displayed here is outrageous.
So you absolutely refuse to profess your assent to the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, eh? I stand by my charge of heresy.
-
I would like to thank you all for participating in this discussion.
-
Oh, big man; Now I'm a hypocrite. Great. Thanks. bye.
It's obvious that you're flustered now. Sometimes a bad conscience will do that. Listen to the voice of that conscience.
-
JohnAnthonyMarie, notice that I didn't even ask you to repudiate your belief in Baptism of Desire. I just asked you to affirm the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation by stating that the Sacrament of Baptism, in BoD situations, still acts as the instrumental cause of justification via the desire for it. That's just the basic teaching of Trent. Why do you find it repugnant?
-
You've got some nerve. Again, I am not some circus animal that is willing to jump through hoops at your command. I am not, and I repeat, not, going to play your game. The dishonesty displayed here is outrageous.
So you absolutely refuse to profess your assent to the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, eh? I stand by my charge of heresy.
One. I owe you NOTHING. I will not make a profession of Faith at your command. You are nobody to me, and if you think I would expose myself to you in any way even slightly related to a religious profession, you have become more the devil to me than Beelzebub himself.
-
Notice how I agreed with you (to a point) about the "absence" thing. As I said, I try to be honest and to seek the truth where it leads me.
-
You've got some nerve. Again, I am not some circus animal that is willing to jump through hoops at your command. I am not, and I repeat, not, going to play your game. The dishonesty displayed here is outrageous.
So you absolutely refuse to profess your assent to the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, eh? I stand by my charge of heresy.
One. I owe you NOTHING. I will not make a profession of Faith at your command. You are nobody to me, and if you think I would expose myself to you in any way even slightly related to a religious profession, you have become more the devil to me than Beelzebub himself.
JohnAnthonyMarie, notice that I didn't even ask you to repudiate your belief in Baptism of Desire. I just asked you to affirm the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation by stating that the Sacrament of Baptism, in BoD situations, still acts as the instrumental cause of justification via the desire for it. That's just the basic teaching of Trent. Why do you find it repugnant?
[I'm actually trying to find a Catholic common ground here with you guys, OK?]
-
JohnAnthonyMarie, notice that I didn't even ask you to repudiate your belief in Baptism of Desire. I just asked you to affirm the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation by stating that the Sacrament of Baptism, in BoD situations, still acts as the instrumental cause of justification via the desire for it. That's just the basic teaching of Trent. Why do you find it repugnant?
Let me repeat myself, I AM NOT UNDER YOUR COMMAND. If you tell me to do something, I will refuse you - it doesn't matter what you ask of me. You are dangerous, you are a threat, being virtually in the same room as you has become equivalent to approaching the near occasion of sin. You are a scandal to yourself and others around you.
I want to be very clear, you have exceeded my tolerance for theological abuse.
-
It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.
But as long as we dwell on earth, encuмbered with this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5); To proceed with further inquiry is forbidden.
-
If you tell me to do something, I will refuse you - it doesn't matter what you ask of me.
So if I asked you whether you believe that Jesus Christ is God, you would refuse to profess that also?
-
It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.
So, I ask you, Christians, are those who die as infidels damned?
-
If you tell me to do something, I will refuse you - it doesn't matter what you ask of me.
So if I asked you whether you believe that Jesus Christ is God, you would refuse to profess that also?
I would not profess the weather to you.
-
I'm honestly not sure how it got to this. I was actually just seeking a common ground whereby we could admit the necessity of the Sacraments without even asking you to reject BoD.
-
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
How can the absence of something be supplied by something else?
Excellent point Neil! That's an awesome catch on modernist double speak!
You should definitely be compelled to recant this shameful accusation, Stubborn. I'm still waiting for proof of your earlier claims about this Catechism.
As for you, Neil, I'm surprised you would fail to understand something so obvious.
To take an analogy, St. Pius X's two statements are like this - "Jurisdiction is necessary for absolution. Its absence can be supplied in the case of common error." So your attempt to find some sort of linguistic flaw in that passage fails.
As for Ladislaus, yes it is correct to say that the sacrament of baptism, like the sacrament of penance, is necessary in fact or in desire, every effect that is realized in the individual recipient has the sacrament itself as cause. The reason is that the desire of the sacrament has the same ultimate effect as baptism or penance itself, when desire is perfected by charity. The grace conferred is said to be the grace proper to the sacrament.
The Summa was on the Altar at Trent, next to Holy Writ. To claim the Fathers there condemned the teaching of St. Thomas would have made them all as one faint in shock. Trent clearly teaches three sacraments - baptism, penance, Eucharist - can be received in desire using the same word for each. To claim it refers in to cases to reception of the sacramental effect in voto and in another case to a mere disposition is an illogical novelty post-Fr. Feeney. The truth is that St. Robert follows St. Thomas almost entirely, and no one has ever, ever claimed St. Thomas' teaching was condemned at Trent.
The Roman Catechism, in some places follows St. Thomas word for word, and it by itself clearly teaches that the intent to receive baptism suffices for salvation. It makes it manifestly and eminently clear that the intention of which it speaks is not a mere disposition, because it says children cannot receive this. But adults can. In distinguishing like this between adults and children, once more it follows the pattern laid out by St. Thomas to the letter.
St. Pius X clearly teaches that the desire for baptism can be implicit. This is authoritative and binding teaching. The Doctors explain in greater detail the reason why this is so,
Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts
-
As for Ladislaus, yes it is correct to say that the sacrament of baptism, like the sacrament of penance, is necessary in fact or in desire, every effect that is realized in the individual recipient has the sacrament itself as cause. The reason is that the desire of the sacrament has the same ultimate effect as baptism or penance itself, when desire is perfected by charity. The grace conferred is said to be the grace proper to the sacrament.
Thank you for that. At least we can put aside this talk, contrary to the definitions of Trent, that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation.
The Summa was on the Altar at Trent, next to Holy Writ. To claim the Fathers there condemned the teaching of St. Thomas would have made them all as one faint in shock.
No, it's not about "condemning" anything; it's a modification of the terminology. Whereas St. Thomas once used the phrase that justification can happen "without" Sacramental Baptism, post Trent theologians consistently referred to the fact that Baptism could be received in re or in voto.
Try not to confuse the Summa with Holy Writ. While St. Thomas was revered, he was neither inspired nor inerrant. Someone once studied the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and found about 40 "material errors" in the Summa. St. Thomas wasn't infallible; only the Church / Pope are infallible. Let's remember the doosy about the Immaculate Conception. Neither was Pius IX CONDEMNING St. Thomas when he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Another thing I object to is the bloating of any given authority in support of a position while ignoring the authorities that don't accept the position. So, despite the fact that you have more Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than who accept it, many will put on the blinders and claim that the Fathers UNANIMOUSLY taught BoD. They did no such thing. Let's just examine the evidence, PRO AND CON, and then weigh the pros against the cons. I don't pretend that the cons don't exist. I acknowledge the places where some Fathers and Doctors and the Code of Canon Law hold BoD. I do not just blow these off or take them lightly. I just feel that the data points on the other side of the issue are stronger and outweigh these sources.
Nor am I primarily interested in BoD. But, in honestly examining all the "authoritative" sources that hold to BoD, they EXCLUSIVELY deal with BoD for CATECHUMENS and do NOT supoort Faith of Desire, as I call it. Only thing in favor of FoD is Suprema Haec, and I question its authority. I also see that Vatican II = Suprema Haec in its ecclesiology. So if I felt that SH was true Catholic teaching, I would have to accept Vatican II as essentially free from error. Only other thing is Quanto Conficiamur, but I believe that it's misunderstood and misinterpreted. Even Msgr. Fenton felt that it was widely misinterpreted.
So let's try to have a rational and charitable discussion.
Now, if someone were to convince me that Trent taught BoD, then I would immediately accept BoD. I just do not think Trent intended to teach BoD. But just because one or another Father or Doctor held to it, that by itself doesn't guarantee that it's correct or free from error.
-
So let's try to have a rational and charitable discussion.
Ok, Ladislaus, great, I agree.
I propose you from your side put forward one source/authority (Magisterial text, Catechism, Council etc or even Father, Doctor, Saint) and ask a clear question which we have to answer, then we from our side put forward any one source/authority and ask one question which you have to answer, and we alternate like this. All right?
Either you can answer whether you accept the authority of St. Pius X's Catechism, or you can start by citing some authority, and asking a question.
-
St. Pius X clearly teaches that the desire for baptism can be implicit. This is authoritative and binding teaching. The Doctors explain in greater detail the reason why this is so,
In which quote? There's "implicit" and then there's "implicit".
IMPLICIT 1: "I believe in the Catholic Church and want to become Catholic." (unarticulated implicit "I want to be baptized.") = Baptism of Desire Proper
IMPLICIT 2: "I am a Native American who believes in the Great Creator. I want to do what Great Creator wants." (implicit "to become Catholic", implicit "to be baptized"). = Faith of Desire (with formal motive of faith being implicit in wanting to do the Will of God, and then desire for baptism being implicit in the implicit faith)
St. Alphonsus got it wrong IMO. That was the emerging Jesuit/Illuminati-inspired theological trend of his day and what ultimately leads us to Vatican II.
If Faith of Desire (what you call "implicit Baptism of desire") (=IMPLICIT 2 above) is BINDING CATHOLIC TEACHING, then we must immediately cease to be Traditional Catholics and accept Vatican II.
Based on the Holy Office response of 1907, I seriously doubt that St. Pius X believed in the "IMPLICIT 2" above.
Based on Trent's teaching on Confession, I feel that even IMPLICIT 1 above needs to be rejected also.
-
So let's try to have a rational and charitable discussion.
Ok, Ladislaus, great, I agree.
I propose you from your side put forward one source/authority (Magisterial text, Catechism, Council etc or even Father, Doctor, Saint) and ask a clear question which we have to answer, then we from our side put forward any one source/authority and ask one question which you have to answer, and we alternate like this. All right?
Either you can answer whether you accept the authority of St. Pius X's Catechism, or you can start by citing some authority, and asking a question.
As I mentioned, I'm not interested in wasting my time arguing about BoD proper (see my previous post). I'm interested in the Faith of Desire problem, the twice-removed implicit Baptism of Desire, where BoD is implicit in faith that's implicit in the general "wanting to conform to the Will of God".
-
And I will keep pushing back on this. I will not accept statements regarding BoD that refer specifically to catechumens as any kind of evidence for FoD.
St. Augustine: catechumens
St. Ambrose: catechumen
Innocent II: catechumen (actually a "priest")
Innocent III: catechumen
Trent: catechumens (cf. treament of necessary dispositions for Baptism before the famous disputed phrase)
Catechism of Trent: catechumens
St. Thomas: catechumens
St. Robert Bellarmine: catechumens
1917 Code of Canon Law: catechumens
These are not relevant to our discussion regarding "Faith of Desire" or Double-Implicit Baptism of Desire.
In support of Faith of Desire, I've seen:
St. Alphonsus
Quanto Conficiamur
Suprema Haec
That's it. Nothing before about the 18th century then.
QC I believe to be completely misinterpreted and not referring to Faith of Desire.
SH never appeared in AAS and there's no proof that it was ever approved by Pius XII. It was brought to you by the same people who brought us Vatican II.
St. Alphonsus got it wrong, but I have also seen quotes where he sides with the need for explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
-
Ok, good. Now we're getting somewhere. First off, here's the quote again,
"17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Do you have a disagreement with what St. Pius X expresses here? You said you thought St. Alphonsus got it wrong, so I'm guessing you do.
I will give you a somewhat lengthy explanation of what theologians say - and of what the view of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus was.
Two things are necessary to have supernatural faith 1. Explicit faith in the primary articles of faith, these constitute as you have said elsewhere the materially minimal truth that the intellect must expressly comprehend and explicitly confess 2. Implicit faith in every other article, implicit because it is included in the "universal will to obey all the divine precepts", as St. Alphonsus puts it, as well as to believe all that God reveals.
Theologians express this by saying it is necessary to believe truths of faith not as we accept truths of reason, based on their intrinsic sensibility, but on the authority of God who reveals. Because he who accepts truths based on what he judges to be true will pick and choose only what seems palatable to him, but he who accepts based on authority accepts everything that authority proposes, as soon as he knows that authority to propose it.
Now, the proximate and true rule of Faith is the authority of the Church. But theologians (Tanqueray, Van Noort etc) commonly teach that the pagan who in a jungle believes in God and obeys his conscience, far aloof from civilization, is invincibly ignorant of the proximate rule of Faith. If he has the universal will to believe all that God reveals and explicit faith in the primary articles of faith, he can be justified. A child baptized in a heretical sect, invincibly ignorant of the true rule of Faith, mistakes Scripture for the rule of faith. If he has a universal will to believe everything Scripture says, he can recover justification after mortal sin by an act of contrition.
Based on Heb 11:6, (which the Holy Office Letter also cites) some theologians hold that even in the Christian dispensation, it is possible to have supernatural faith with explicit faith in God and implicit faith in Christ. But, after Christ has come, unlike what was the case before, they put it forward as a pious and probable opinion that God will lead these souls to explicit faith in Christ before the end of their lives.
St. Alphonsus for example seems to hold this. And St. Pius X clearly teaches this as well.
-
You may not hold all of their positions, but you appear to have learned some of your ideas from them.
You're a complete joke, Ambrose. I've already explained to you a dozen times how I arrived at my conclusions, well before I had ever heard of the Dimonds.
Ambrose is a "complete joke". He is one of the more knowledgeable, articulate and charitable posters here. I wonder what the rest of us are. I think the above words from Ladislaus are the words of a defeated man who still wants to fight.
-
Three cheers for JohnAnthonyMarie
:applause: :applause: :applause:
Oh what the heck, let's make it four:
:applause:
-
Ok, good. Now we're getting somewhere. First off, here's the quote again,
"17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
See my distinction regarding "implicit" above. There's no indication here about whether this refers to Implicit 1 or Implicit 2. Taken in conjunction with the 1907 Holy Office response, one would have to lean towards Implicit 1.
-
Three cheers for JohnAnthonyMarie
:applause: :applause: :applause:
Oh what the heck, let's make it four:
:applause:
Interesting how you applaud his refusal to accept the necessity of the Sacraments as taught by Trent.
I can have a conversation with Nishant because we put that behind us.
You, however, are of bad will.
-
There is no doubt that the Invisible Church theory is condemned. BOD adherents ALL think that one can be saved invisibly, like if there was a shortcut to Heaven. That is the only reason they defend BOD. In one hand, to justify the modernist sentimental belief that a just God could not possibly condemn SO MANY people (the non-Catholics) and on the other hand, (and this is where I am afraid this undiminishing of the Faith is coming from), to deny EESN, part of the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic agenda to dethrone the Catholic Church as the ONLY way of salvation in its aim for one world government -one world religion.
"The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Church in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How grievously are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!"
Pope Pius XII
"Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error".
Pope Leo XIII
-
Theologians express this by saying it is necessary to believe truths of faith not as we accept truths of reason, based on their intrinsic sensibility, but on the authority of God who reveals.
I believe it was Msgr. Fenton who stated that even in his day (when the decay in faith was well advanced) the opinion that explicit believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation was still the majority opinion, that in addition to the believe having to be formally supernatural, there has to be the minimal material supernatural content. There are several dogmatic teachings of the Church which state that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith, so I have a hard time understanding how that opinion isn't outright heretical.
This theological opinion is the beginning of the decay into Faith of Desire that undermines Catholic ecclesiology.
-
There is no doubt that the Invisible Church theory is condemned. BOD adherents ALL think that one can be saved invisibly, like if there was a shortcut to Heaven. That is the only reason they defend BOD. In one hand, to justify the modernist sentimental belief that a just God could not possibly condemn SO MANY people (the non-Catholics) and on the other hand, (and this is where I am afraid this undiminishing of the Faith is coming from), to deny EESN, part of the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic agenda to dethrone the Catholic Church as the ONLY way of salvation in its aim for one world government -one world religion.
"The Church is visible because she has a body. Therefore they are straying from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched or seen, something merely "spiritual" as they say, a Church in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of bond invisible to the senses, How grievously are they mistaken who have imagined a hidden and invisible Church according to their own devices!"
Pope Pius XII
"Those who arbitrary conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error".
Pope Leo XIII
Fenton, when compiling all the teaching's of the Church on salvation, strongly condemns the invisible Church theory and clearly teaches BOB/D. Poor guy never got introduced to the bloggers here.
-
Well, as far as Pope St. Pius X is concerned, he says in a general way that the desire is implicit in an act of love of God (not love of Christ in particular, for example), just as St. Alphonsus did.
Citing St. Thomas, Fr. Garrigou Lagrange explains,
On the justification of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things.
St. Thomas writes, Ia IIae, q. 89, a. 6: “When a child begins to have the use of reason, he should order his acts toward a proper end, to the extent that he is capable of discretion at that age.” And again in the answer to the third objection: “The end is first in the intention. Hence this is the time when the child is obliged by the affirmative command: ‘Turn ye to Me. . . .’ But if the child does this, he obtains the remission of original sin.”
It is an excellent form of baptism of desire. St. Thomas and Thomists reconcile this doctrine with the legitimate interpretation of the axiom: “To one who does what in him lies (with the help of actual grace), God does not deny habitual grace,” and in the present case God does not deny what is necessary for justification ... (Cf. especially on this subject John of St. Thomas, De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a. 3, nos. 40-41, and the thesis of Father Paul Angelo, O.P., La possibilità di salute nel primo atto morale per il fanciullo infedele, Rome, the Angelicuм, 1946.)
The Summa article mentioned is here (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2089.htm#article6).
As I mentioned, St. Thomas and the Doctors hold as a pious and probable opinion God will bring those who seek to love Him sincerely to explicit faith and perfect love of Jesus Christ before the end of their lives. Msgr. Fenton is speaking of this when he says "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation"
I know you don't agree with the traditional viewpoint concerning the Scriptural case of Cornelius, but this is what St. Thomas says concerning him. Because he is said in the New Testament to have performed a meritorious work even before hearing of Christ, St. Thomas says he already was in the state of grace and had faith at that time, explicitly in God, implicitly in Christ.
This is at least expressive and illustrative of what view the Angelic Doctor held, with regard to supernatural faith and justification.
With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.
-
Fenton, when compiling all the teaching's of the Church on salvation, strongly condemns the invisible Church theory and clearly teaches BOB/D. Poor guy never got introduced to the bloggers here.
So what tasteless joke is this?
By Fenton (From Suprema haec sacra):
"In order that a man may be saved “within” the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved".
"It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit".
-
Back to the thread with Nishant.
Nishant, let's say that I grant for now that someone could be saved by believing explicitly merely in the Rewarder/Punisher God so long as he believes it with a supernatural motive.
Let's apply this to the following case.
There's an orthodox practicing Jew. He believes in the existence of God and that God rewards the good and punishes the wicked based on the authority of God revealing in the Torah. He follows the Law and he keeps the natural law and remains in a state of grace.
Let's say this Jew dies.
Could he be saved?
-
Well, as far as Pope St. Pius X is concerned, he says in a general way that the desire is implicit in an act of love of God (not love of Christ in particular, for example), just as St. Alphonsus did.
But it leaves a lot out. I say it, not he, because the catechism is named after him, but he undoubtedly didn't write the entire thing himself.
It leaves out that one can't have supernatural love for God without having supernatural faith. Supernatural charity is impossible without supernatural faith. So in my mind the intent here is not entirely clear.
-
Fenton, when compiling all the teaching's of the Church on salvation, strongly condemns the invisible Church theory and clearly teaches BOB/D. Poor guy never got introduced to the bloggers here.
So what tasteless joke is this?
By Fenton (From Suprema haec sacra):
"In order that a man may be saved “within” the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved".
"It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit".
Yeah, it's an obvious contradiction. Msgr. Fenton is clearly doing theological gymnastics to reconcile SH with Traditional ecclesiology. So some people are visibly within the Church and others invisibly within the Church. Just semantics, and distinctions without a difference. But St. Robert Bellarmine, in his Tridentine ecclesiology, against the Protestant errors, explicitly rejected the notion that the Church is two-fold, and this clearly makes for a twofold Church, with visible parts and invisible parts. Clearly in rejecting the idea of an "invisible Church" no one is talking about two SEPARATE Churches anyway, where one is visible the other invisible. Clearly what needs to be rejected is a Church that's a composite of both visible and invisible parts, that twofold Church rejected by Bellarmine.
-
Back to the thread with Nishant.
Nishant, let's say that I grant for now that someone could be saved by believing explicitly merely in the Rewarder/Punisher God so long as he believes it with a supernatural motive.
Let's apply this to the following case.
There's an orthodox practicing Jew. He believes in the existence of God and that God rewards the good and punishes the wicked based on the authority of God revealing in the Torah. He follows the Law and he keeps the natural law and remains in a state of grace.
Let's say this Jew dies.
Could he be saved?
-
Nishant, I'm not trying to "trip you up" with this question. I'm just trying to illustrate my problem with Faith of Desire (=Double-Implicit Baptism of Desire).
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
"Attack on our faith"?
THEN DEFEND IT YOU HYPOCRITE!
The Church is the one Christ founded to preserve, safeguard and defend Her truths and Her sacraments.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem.
Oh, big man; Now I'm a hypocrite. Great. Thanks. bye.
Yes, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem. - AGREED?
-
It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.
So, I ask you, Christians, are those who die as infidels damned?
Did they die a natural death or was it death via an unforeseen accident? /sarcasm
-
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
How can the absence of something be supplied by something else?
Excellent point Neil! That's an awesome catch on modernist double speak!
You should definitely be compelled to recant this shameful accusation, Stubborn. I'm still waiting for proof of your earlier claims about this Catechism.
As for you, Neil, I'm surprised you would fail to understand something so obvious.
Look it up yourself - post what you find.
St. Pius X clearly teaches that the desire for baptism can be implicit. This is authoritative and binding teaching. The Doctors explain in greater detail the reason why this is so,
He never taught such modernist crap and shame on you for blaming him for that! He did what the Church has always done and what YOU should do - Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation against those like yourself, who defend the anti-sacrament, a BOD, where one is rewarded salvation without any sacrament at all.
Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts
Best to use this teaching from St. Alphonsus as this one agrees with Trent!
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.
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
"Attack on our faith"?
THEN DEFEND IT YOU HYPOCRITE!
The Church is the one Christ founded to preserve, safeguard and defend Her truths and Her sacraments.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem.
Oh, big man; Now I'm a hypocrite. Great. Thanks. bye.
Yes, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem. - AGREED?
We keep defending and you, Bowler and others keep attacking.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, when you attack it you attack the Church.
-
Saint Robert Bellarmine's Definition of the Church
"Now, our opinion is that the Church is only one, and not two; and that one and true [Church] is the assembly of men gathered in the profession of the same Christian faith, and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the reign of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From which definition, one can easily gather which men pertain to the Church, and indeed those who do not pertain to her. For there are three parts of this definition:
1. The profession of the true faith,
2. The communion of the sacraments, and
3. Subjection to the legitimate shepherd, the Roman Pontiff.
By reason of the first part all infidels are excluded, both those who were never in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans; and those who were, and went back, such as heretics and apostates. By reason of the second part catechumens and excommunicates are excluded, the former because they are not admitted to the communion of the sacraments, and the latter because they are cast out. By reason of the third part are excluded schismatics, who have faith and sacraments, but are not subject to the legitimate pastors, and therefore they profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [of the Church]. But all others are included, even the reprobate, the wicked, and the impious.
"And so there is this difference between our opinion and all others, that all others require internal virtues to constitute someone in the Church, and on that account they make the true Church invisible; but we, although we believe that all virtues, such as faith, hope, charity, etc., are found in the Church, yet that anyone can in some way be called a part of the true Church, about which Scripture speaks, we do not believe any internal virtues are required, but only external profession of the faith, and communion of the sacraments, which are perceived by the senses. For the Church is a assembly of men as visible and palpable as is the assembly of the people of Rome, or the kingdom of France, or the republic of Venice."
Was then a contradiction in St Robert Bellarmine writings? :scratchchin:
There is no contradiction. The reason that you think that is because you are learning your Faith from non-approved sources and untrained men who rely on either themselves or other untrained men, who are confusing you.
If you have ever read Mystici Corporis of Pooe Pius XII, that is for the most part Bellarmine's doctrine being taught authoritatively to the universal Church.
-
Back to the thread with Nishant, since LoT and Ambrose have shown up to derail this.
Nishant, let's say that I grant for now that someone could be saved by believing explicitly merely in the Rewarder/Punisher God so long as he believes it with a supernatural motive.
Let's apply this to the following case.
There's an orthodox practicing Jew. He believes in the existence of God and that God rewards the good and punishes the wicked based on the authority of God revealing in the Torah. He follows the Law and he keeps the natural law and remains in a state of grace.
Let's say this Jew dies.
Could he be saved?
-
Perhaps I'll start a separate thread on this subject.
-
Back to the thread with Nishant, since LoT and Ambrose have shown up to derail this.
Nishant, let's say that I grant for now that someone could be saved by believing explicitly merely in the Rewarder/Punisher God so long as he believes it with a supernatural motive.
Let's apply this to the following case.
There's an orthodox practicing Jew. He believes in the existence of God and that God rewards the good and punishes the wicked based on the authority of God revealing in the Torah. He follows the Law and he keeps the natural law and remains in a state of grace.
Let's say this Jew dies.
Could he be saved?
Does he at least implicitly believe in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity? It is possible he might have to believe this explicitly in order to be saved and if so I believe that would answer the question.
If such a person were to die in a state of [sanctifying] grace we would be saved. But to be in a state of sanctifying grace one must have supernatural faith and charity.
He must explicitly believe there is a God and that He rewards good and punishes evil.
What is unsettled is whether he must explicitly believe in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity or not but if not explicitly he MUST believe these last two at least implicitly.
So we get to a point where we believe that BOD is possible but we cannot say for sure what non-member is saved within the Church. We do know that such a non-member must have the above basic minimums. He must die in a state of sanctifying grace which means he has a supernatural Faith and Charity, I don't believe you can have both of these without a supernatural Hope by the way.
-
OK. I've distilled the bottom line.
If such a person were to die in a state of [sanctifying] grace [h]e would be saved. But to be in a state of sanctifying grace one must have supernatural faith and charity.
He must explicitly believe there is a God and that He rewards good and punishes evil.
You admit the possibility (for now -- perhaps after this you'll retract) that this Jew (who obviously does not explicitly believe in Jesus or the Trinity) can be saved by virtue of believing in God as a Rewarder.
Now, as Nishant pointed out, even this natural truth (God's existence as Rewarder), although it CAN be believed based on natural reasons alone, must be believed with the supernatural motive, based on the authority of God revealing, in order for it to qualify as supernatural faith.
So if such a one is saved, he was saved because he believed in God's existence based upon God's authority in Old Testament Revelation. Is that correct?
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
"Attack on our faith"?
THEN DEFEND IT YOU HYPOCRITE!
The Church is the one Christ founded to preserve, safeguard and defend Her truths and Her sacraments.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem.
Oh, big man; Now I'm a hypocrite. Great. Thanks. bye.
Yes, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem. - AGREED?
We keep defending and you, Bowler and others keep attacking.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, when you attack it you attack the Church.
Aside from yourself, who do you think you are fooling?
I SAID FOR YOU TO TRY TO DEFEND THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS UNTO SALVATION................................................YOU DEFEND A BOD........A BOD IS NOT A SACRAMENT.............. A BOD IS, LITERALLY, SALVATION WITHOUT ANY SACRAMENT AT ALL = YOU DEFEND SALVATION WITHOUT ANY SACRAMENT AT ALL = YOU ARE WAGING BATTLE AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS UNTO SALVATION..................YOU LOSE.
-
This discussion has become a real eye-opener for me. I can not recall ever seeing anyone twist words like this before, but I am glad anyone here can read and see this for themselves. There is some serious denial going on here, and frankly, I am somewhat embarrassed by it. Such a simple sentence, and somehow it is used to fuel this scandal.
Matthew, I really don't know what to say here, but I think we might agree that this whole manner of discussion, preserved here, exemplifies a most insidious attack on our Faith. These partisans of error have turned this Catholic discussion forum into something quite adverse to the theological safety of a Catholic based reference group.
"Attack on our faith"?
THEN DEFEND IT YOU HYPOCRITE!
The Church is the one Christ founded to preserve, safeguard and defend Her truths and Her sacraments.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem.
Oh, big man; Now I'm a hypocrite. Great. Thanks. bye.
Yes, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation as Holy Mother has always done - if you cannot get yourself to do such a thing, then you are part of the problem. - AGREED?
We keep defending and you, Bowler and others keep attacking.
Baptism of Desire is de fide, when you attack it you attack the Church.
Aside from yourself, who do you think you are fooling?
I SAID FOR YOU TO TRY TO DEFEND THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS UNTO SALVATION................................................YOU DEFEND A BOD........A BOD IS NOT A SACRAMENT.............. A BOD IS, LITERALLY, SALVATION WITHOUT ANY SACRAMENT AT ALL = YOU DEFEND SALVATION WITHOUT ANY SACRAMENT AT ALL = YOU ARE WAGING BATTLE AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS UNTO SALVATION..................YOU LOSE.
The sacraments cannot be separated from Catholic teaching about the sacraments. I have posted a four volume set in the library on the sacraments. Have you read it?
-
I'll start another thread later on the salvation of the Jew question. I haven't had any responses; perhaps it's just buried in all these huge threads.
-
Nishant, let's say that I grant for now that someone could be saved by believing explicitly merely in the Rewarder/Punisher God so long as he believes it with a supernatural motive.
Dear Ladislaus, thank you for the comments. I typed out a response, and just saw your other thread, I'm not sure where to respond, I put it here for now. We'll discuss it further there if you like.
In defense of what was written in the Catechism, and your point about supernatural faith of course necessarily preceding supernatural charity - Yes, that is true but the reason it suffices to say an act of perfect love of God can have the baptismal effect is because someone who who loves God with all his heart and for His own sake already firmly assents to the proposition, as to a revealed truth, that "God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" and that He is not merely an object to be contemplated, but a Subject to be loved, and this with all of one's strength.
Why would a man love God so if he did not already know (as by faith) that God was to be loved in such a way? And if he knows this, and bears witness by his living faith that works by charity, that he believes it, how does he believe it and who revealed it to him?
Such a revelation could hardly come from merely natural motives, but of this too it must be said, It was not flesh and blood that proposed this, but the Father in heaven. Indeed, it was what Christ called the greatest of the commandments, that God is to be loved with all one's strength and heart. This great precept of the law, in which as it were is contained the whole law, a man can come to the knowledge of only if he seeks God with all his heart.
St. Thomas says God will then propose what must be believed, at least interiorly and by inspiration, if not exteriorly, by a Saint or Angel.
Before I come to your example, let me ask you if we can do it like this. Let's take two cases, pagans living near the Himalayas in North India, far away from Christianity and civilization. The one in 100 B.C. and the other in 100 A.D.
Now, what must the former pagan do to be saved? He must follow closely the natural law, and inasmuch as he continually does this, and remains in good faith, under the operation of actual grace he will receive the inspiration to seek after God with all his strength, and to love Him with all of his heart, and therefore he can be justified. Now, because this was in the Old dispensation, God required nothing more.
Such a man is not a pagan in his heart, but is in truth one of the faithful of Israel (which prefigured the Church) of old, united to Her invisibly and by inner and interior bonds, circuмcized in heart, and therefore a Christian at least by anticipation, as was the case with all the OT just.
Now, what of the latter pagan, in identical conditions, except that he lives in the era after Jesus Christ has come, and the Christian dispensation has been instituted?
Does it seem right to say that such a man, although he did everything else identically, would perish? What God has established remains true, because he who is in good faith, and under the operation of actual grace and in response to it begins to love God with all his heart will immediately be justified. But in the Christian dispensation, as the Doctors teach, we ought piously to believe that such a one will come to explicit faith in Christ before the end of their lives.
Again, Cornelius in the New Testament era is generally given as an example of this. For St. Thomas and others say that as per the Scriptural text, Cornelius was justified even before he heard of Christ, because he had implicit faith in Him through explicit faith in God and the universal will to believe what God reveals and do what God commands. Such men are few, but undoubtedly they will be taken care of by divine Providence, who governs such men in a special way. And therefore, we ought to believe piously that if any are justified by implicit faith in Christ, they will come to explicit faith in Christ before they die, once the Christian dispensation has been instituted.
-
Now, what must the former pagan do to be saved? He must follow closely the natural law, and inasmuch as he continually does this, and remains in good faith, under the operation of actual grace he will receive the inspiration to seek after God with all his strength, and to love Him with all of his heart, and therefore he can be justified. Now, because this was in the Old dispensation, God required nothing more.
Even in the old dispensation most of the Church Fathers said that people were saved by their faith in the coming Messiah, from the expectation of the Messiah. Some have said that circuмcision was salvific, though I'm not sure how that would have worked out for girls. There's no notion, in my recollection, that there were any exceptions for the pre- or post- new dispensation "noble pagan".
Does it seem right to say that such a man, although he did everything else identically, would perish?
You see, this is my problem. This is simply not theology. It's emotional speculation regarding what would or would not be fair or just of God to do. St. Augustine rejected this type of reasoning as leading to a "vortex" of confusion and something which must be avoided if we "wish to remain Catholic." We do not know why God allowed this person to be born in this state. We have to recall that salvation is owed to NO ONE. And the person's natural state (i..e the degree or punishment or lack thereof) would depend on the person's actual sins. God perhaps knew that such a soul, had he been born into a Catholic family in some other time period would have rejected the faith and merited a much greater punishment.
How about the case of the aborted baby? That person never "had a chance" either.
We just cannot do "theology" (pseudo-theology) based on speculations of this nature.
But I don't want to get into this too much. I'd rather stick to the Jew example. I am just trying to illustrate the logical consequences of saying "yes" to that question.
We have to remember that elevation to the supernatural state is not something that's owed to anyone; our created natures are not even capable of it. On the other hand, we also have to remember that hell is not a monolithic place, a single one-temperature cauldron where this well-meaning pagan might be sitting right next to Joe Stalin or Judas Iscariot. Even one of the EENS definitions stated that the punishments of hell are directly commensurate with one's actual sins, that people suffer there to "differing degrees". I believe that there are people like this in hell who do not suffer all that much. Of course there are the unbaptized infants who don't suffer at all. But the "suffering" in hell is due entirely to ACTUAL sin, and so whatever people suffer in hell is perfectly just and cannot ever be questioned. Whereas the eternal "loss" aspect of it, no one is owed that and so there can never be a question of God's being unjust to deny someone the beatific vision and supernatural life.
Again, Cornelius in the New Testament era is generally given as an example of this. For St. Thomas and others say that as per the Scriptural text, Cornelius was justified even before he heard of Christ, because he had implicit faith in Him through explicit faith in God and the universal will to believe what God reveals and do what God commands.
Did Cornelius die unbaptized? All we see in the Sacred Scriptures is that the Holy Spirit manifested His activity upon Cornelius. it doesn't say that Cornelius was in a state of sanctifying grace. If you read Trent, you'll find that the Council attributes the predisposing of the soul to the activity of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit manifested this predisposing activity in order to correct St. Peter's tendencies towards judaizing. He responded by saying that he couldn't refuse Baptism to such a one in whom he saw the (predisposing) activity of the Holy Spirit. In other words, if the Holy Spirit was preparing Cornelius for Baptism, then it showed to St. Peter God's will that this one should be baptized.
So Cornelius is no proof of Baptism of Desire.
-
Ok, so you deny that an act of perfect love of God suffices for justification, then?
Well, I agree with you that the damned suffer the pain of sense to different degrees according to the indulgence of their passions, and the pain of loss in common.
I believe what you say on the patristic view of righteous Gentiles is incorrect, but we will come back to that in just a moment. I ask you, could the Jєωιѕн people, at least, have had supernatural faith through implicit faith in Jesus Christ?
St. Thomas in summarizing the view of the Fathers says that faith of some kind in Christ's Incarnation and Passion has always been necessary. Likewise desire of baptism at least implicit. Hence no one has been saved without at least implicit faith in Christ. Likewise, the baptismal effect has never been conferred without at least an implicit desire for the sacrament, through perfect love of God.
St. Augustine, <City of God> 18.47: (413-26 AD): "Nor do I think the
Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the
Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be... they cannot deny
that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to
the true Israelites, the citizens of the fatherland above, not by
earthly but by heavenly association."
<Retractions> 1.13.3: (426-27 AD): "This very thing which is now
called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it
lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ Himself
came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed,
began to be called Christian."
St. Nilus, <Epistle 1>. 154:(c. 430 AD): "In every nation the
one who fears God and does justice is acceptable to Him. For it is
clear that such a one is acceptable to God and is not to be cast
aside, who at his own right time flees to the worship of the blessed
knowledge of God."
St. Cyril of Alexandria, <Against Julian> 3.107: (433-41 AD): "For if
there is One over all, and there is no other besides Him, He would be
Master of all, because He was Maker of all. For He is also the God of
the gentiles, and has fully satisfied by laws implanted in their
hearts, which the Maker has engraved in the hearts of all [cf. Rom
2.14-16]. For when the gentiles, [Paul] says, not having the law, do
by nature the things of the law, they show the work of the law
written on their hearts. But since He is not only the Maker and God
of the Jews [cf. Rom 3.29] but also of the gentiles... He sees fit by
His providence to care not only for those who are of the blood of
Israel, but also for all those upon the earth."
Now, if this is the case, as I think you will agree, the question remains - how did they acquire supernatural faith, and charity following upon it?
Let me briefly mention three authorities/sources that support my view,
In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Then there is of course the Catechism of St. Pius. Really, I have a lengthy introduction by Msgr. Hagan, he mentions in detail how St. Pius X had wanted a Catechism for the faithful written by the Pope and mentioned it to the then Holy Father and then took up the idea himself when he was elected. Not a word on how he may have let something written by someone else pass off as his own, or that he would not have approved himself what was written.
No writer of repute has ever cast doubt on the authorship of that Catechism by St. Pius X. It is related in the Catholic Encyclopedia among thousands of other places that he is its author. Only the Dimonds and a few modern persons (and the Dimonds say they wouldnt believe it even if St. Pius X had really authored it, so what is the point of proving that he did) have uttered such an absurdity.
-
This is from a much older post, I put it here for those who were arguing about Trent's teaching. I'll comment on the Roman Catechism and whether it teaches BOD later.
The council of Trent explained how the sacrament of the eucharist may be received in desire:
Now as to the use of this holy SACRAMENT [of the Eucharist], the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished THREE WAYS OF RECEIVING IT. For they have taught that some receive it SACRAMENTALLY ONLY, to wit sinners; OTHERS SPIRITUALLY ONLY, those to wit who EATING IN DESIRE [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both SACRAMENTALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. (Denz. 881)
St. Thomas:
In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, WHILE DESIRING TO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT; and this is NOT MERELY TO EAT CHRIST SPIRITUALLY, BUT LIKEWISE TO EAT THIS SACRAMENT. (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2)
Trent, the sacrament of penance may be received in desire:
The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein. (Denz. 898)
Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT,-which is, together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted (Denz 807)
St. Thomas:
Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS DESIRE, he does not RECEIVE GRACE. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to PENANCE likewise. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)
Trent, the sacrament of baptism may be received in desire:
And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Denz. 796)
St. Thomas:
Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS INTENTION, he does not receive grace. THIS IS EVIDENT IN THE CASE OF BAPTISM, and applies to Penance likewise. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)
Thus, the sacraments of baptism and penance are necessary for salvation, yet they may be received in desire.
Trent: “And this SACRAMENT OF PENANCE is, for those who have fallen after baptism, NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, AS BAPTISM ITSELF IS for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” (Denz. 895)
Syllogism:
1. Sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation as baptism itself is necessary. (Trent)
2. Sacrament of penance is necessary in fact or at least in desire. (Trent)
3. Therefore, baptism is also necessary in fact or at least in desire (From 1 and 2)
And question for those who claim desire is a mere disposition - if in two cases the word desire above refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire (perfect contrition and spiritual communion), how can it be rationally believed that in the third case it refers only to a mere disposition? Such a claim is a novelty and is unworthy of credence.
-
OK. I've distilled the bottom line.
If such a person were to die in a state of [sanctifying] grace [h]e would be saved. But to be in a state of sanctifying grace one must have supernatural faith and charity.
He must explicitly believe there is a God and that He rewards good and punishes evil.
You admit the possibility (for now -- perhaps after this you'll retract) that this Jew (who obviously does not explicitly believe in Jesus or the Trinity) can be saved by virtue of believing in God as a Rewarder.
Now, as Nishant pointed out, even this natural truth (God's existence as Rewarder), although it CAN be believed based on natural reasons alone, must be believed with the supernatural motive, based on the authority of God revealing, in order for it to qualify as supernatural faith.
So if such a one is saved, he was saved because he believed in God's existence based upon God's authority in Old Testament Revelation. Is that correct?
As long as he has a supernatural faith. We are assuming this practicer of the Jєωιѕн faith has not heard of the Catholic Faith and is not willfully blind to it. How many of them are there? I'd say around zero.
But again, explicit belief may be necessary in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity. The issue has not be definitively settled. They MUST believe that God exists and he is the rewarder of good and evil. Whether their belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity must be explicit or not has not be definitively defined. If the last two must be explicit I think that would eliminate the chance for any practicer of a non-Catholic religion to die in a state of sanctifying grace within the Church as a non-member.
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.
-
LoT wrote:
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.
-
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.
Then you have absolutely no grounds for accusing either Vatican II or the Vatican II popes of heresy, because all of Vatican II is based on that "minority opinion". In fact, I should say that Vatican II settled or "answered" the theological uncertainty by authoritatively teaching the minority opinion.
-
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.
Then you have absolutely no grounds for accusing either Vatican II or the Vatican II popes of heresy, because all of Vatican II is based on that "minority opinion". In fact, I should say that Vatican II settled or "answered" the theological uncertainty by authoritatively teaching the minority opinion.
You say this, but it is your idea only, which displays an ignorance of this subject. Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions were a means of salvation. That is heresy. The 1949 Holy Office Letter left open the question of the minimum Faith necessary, and never taught that non-Catholic religions were a means to salvation.
In addition to Vatican II's heretical and erroneous teaching on false religions being a means to salvation, there are other heresies and errors against the Faith. Your tunnel vision on this subject is blinding you to the bigger picture.
-
Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions were a means of salvation.
So do you.
See the thread I started about how non Catholics can be saved.
That is heresy.
From your own mouth...
-
In addition to Vatican II's heretical and erroneous teaching on false religions being a means to salvation, there are other heresies and errors against the Faith.
Feel free to list them, and I'll be happy to show how each and every one of them derives from your own ecclesiology.
-
Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions were a means of salvation.
So do you.
See the thread I started about how non Catholics can be saved.
That is heresy.
From your own mouth...
You display your ignorance for all to see.
Non Catholic religions are not a means to salvation. The Holy Office did not teach that. You can't make a square peg fit into a round hole.
-
The latest Eleison Comment unknowingly highlights exactly the point that Ladislaus keeps stressing, "that traditionalist BODers fail to see how religious indifferentism, the condemned notion that people can be saved in any religion, comes directly from pre Vatican II theology. That there is nothing heretical in Vatican II that BOD adherents already do not believe in anyway. From the 16 docuмents of Vatican II (only 2 which are entitled "dogmatic") I cannot find a single heretical statement that the BOD believers are not holding themselves anyway. I still don't know why they reject Vatican II and then proceed to adhere to the same heresies".
Snippet from the latest "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLI - 351 5th April 2014
CANONISATIONS UNREAL
The “canonisation”of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II, is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been (objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds canonisations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But it need not do so.
In August of last year these “Comments” stated the fact that Newchurch “canonisations” are such a different reality from pre-Conciliar canonisations that no Catholic need believe that the post-conciliar canonisations are infallible. I was not wrong, but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.
The Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
True canonisations are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody used to get uncanonised), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a model. As such, canonisations used to fulfil the four conditions of infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life, a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonisation ?
The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns out that the person I canonised did not have all the qualities required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonising” Pope’s “declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party to celebrate.
If one thinks about it, this explanation of the Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch, Newcanonisations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists proud of making everything new ?
truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science............
For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
The Trad BODers deny the very words of the Athanasian Creed (a credo), the unanimous opinion of the Fathers of the Church, the teaching of all the doctors and saints, and the dogmatically defined words of the Council of Florence. In every word, Bp. Williamson is describing the exact action of the trad BODers ALL of who end up believing that someone can be saved who has no explcit desire to be baptized, martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trintiy and the Incarnation (Christ), and not a one BODer condemns the notion.
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. They are denying clear dogma.
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ
DOGMA:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)
BODers deny Creeds
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
LoT wrote:
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.
Thank you Ambrose. This is what I thought but it is good to be reassured.
-
LoT wrote:
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.
Thank you Ambrose. This is what I thought but it is good to be reassured.
It's been settled ... dogmatically by Vatican I.
The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.
-
LoT wrote:
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.
Thank you Ambrose. This is what I thought but it is good to be reassured.
You BODers are denying the clear dogma, you know it is dogma, why do you deny it? There can only be one reason, it is not dogma, other than that, you are denying clear dogma. It has been defined, how can you sit there and deny it? If this clear dogma does not mean what it says then no dogma or quote from a theologian means what it says.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”