Pope St Pius X's "Oath Against Modernism" of 1910
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source.
Profession of faith
1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
[...]
4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
[...]
14. [...]
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]
Profession of faith
1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
[...]
4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
[...]
14. [...]
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]
When it comes to good-willed people of invincible ignorance who lived lives of natural virtue, I was taught not that they are saved but that they go to limbo.In short, yes, I agree with this. But it's still a theory.
I admit I haven't followed the posts about who can be saved, so my question has probably been covered many times before. But this is a nice short thread so I'm going to ask here and I hope it can be answered easily. When it comes to good-willed people of invincible ignorance who lived lives of natural virtue, I was taught not that they are saved but that they go to limbo. And that it's rare. Where does this fit in the modernist vs Catholic spectrum?I'm pretty sure its dogmatic that supernatural faith is needed for salvation, and thus that what you say here is correct, I believe the debate would be over whether its *possible* for someone who's ignorant of the Catholic faith (and to what extent) could nevertheless *in some way* have supernatural faith. I don't know for sure if that's possible, but I'm not sure it couldn't be.
If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith, in what way would he remain just (ie., such damnation would be an injustice, which would impute imperfection to god, which is impossible)?1. God wills that all are saved and "come to the knowledge of the Truth."
I believe the debate would be over whether its *possible* for someone who's ignorant of the Catholic faith (and to what extent) could nevertheless *in some way* have supernatural faith. I don't know for sure if that's possible, but I'm not sure it couldn't be.
When it comes to good-willed people of invincible ignorance who lived lives of natural virtue, I was taught not that they are saved but that they go to limbo. And that it's rare. Where does this fit in the modernist vs Catholic spectrum?
And that it's rare.
My question is:
If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith, in what way would he remain just (ie., such damnation would be an injustice, which would impute imperfection to god, which is impossible)?
My question is:There has never been such an adult person. Each and every one of us choose to either want to know the faith, in which case God will see to it that we get that chance, or each and every one of us choose to not want to know the faith.
If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith, in what way would he remain just (ie., such damnation would be an injustice, which would impute imperfection to god, which is impossible)?
There has never been such an adult person. Each and every one of us choose to either want to know the faith, in which case God will see to it that we get that chance, or each and every one of us choose to not want to know the faith.I agree that God can do whatever he wants. God could, also, choose to give an infant conscious, intellectual belief in the essential dogmas as well.
"...The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children"... Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
"Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:" Ecclesiasticus 15:18
All I know is that IF God saves someone, they'd *in some way* be inside the Church, because the Church clearly teaches that outside the Church there's no salvation.That "some way" is the sacrament of baptism, of water and the Holy Ghost. We aren't allowed to invent any other way. This is the issue.
God could send an angel to such a virtuous pagan, if he wanted to. And maybe he always does. Maybe he often does, at the moment of death. Do any of us know for sure? I don't.
1. God wills that all are saved and "come to the knowledge of the Truth."Limbo is the border region of hell: Those who are consigned to it do not see the face of God (which is the primary punishment of the damned).
2. Salvation and heaven are a gift, not a right.
3. Infants who die or are aborted do not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel, yet they also would not suffer in hell, but would enjoy natural happiness in Limbo (which is part of hell).
.
I assume you are playing devil's advocate, but your question borders on blasphemy. The overall answer is #2 above. God knows all men's hearts and those whom He knows will not accept the Faith, He does not have to give them this chance. Again, the Faith and heaven and salvation are a gift, not a right. It is a mystery of salvation that God knows who will accept or reject the Faith from all eternity.
God arranges things in such a way that all those that are written in the book will know the faith and will be baptized.Nonsense:
If someone dies unbaptized, then he would not have made it to heaven either with supernatural faith infused by baptism. And if he had gone to hell despite baptism, he would then dwell deeper in hell than without baptism.
God is just and has ways to ensure that noone gets lost who shouldn't. And he even makes things easier for those in hell.
There has never been such an adult person. Each and every one of us choose to either want to know the faith, in which case God will see to it that we get that chance, or each and every one of us choose to not want to know the faith.On the day of Pentecost, there were millions of such persons.
"...The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children"... Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
"Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:" Ecclesiasticus 15:18
That "some way" is the sacrament of baptism, of water and the Holy Ghost. We aren't allowed to invent any other way. This is the issue.Thank you for acknowledging the doctrine of explicit and implicit baptism of desire (which St. Alphonsus said is de fide)!
Thank you for acknowledging the doctrine of explicit and implicit baptism of desire (which St. Alphonsus said is de fide)!Saints calling things de fide doesn't matter much to you when it comes to the infallibility of canonisations, but when it suits you you're sure to bring it up.
Thank you for acknowledging the doctrine of explicit and implicit baptism of desire (which St. Alphonsus said is de fide)!
A God who would do this would be unjust, which ought to show the Feeneyite error.
Where is it taught that God is bound in duty to give every man a chance at heaven? In fact, the opposite is true, and is a doctrine of the Faith - that we are all judged guilty of Adam's sin and we all deserve hell. The fact that God sent His Son to redeem us is a gift, and so is heaven. None of us deserves forgiveness of sins, or a redeemer, or grace, much less heaven. Your entitlement mentality towards heaven is blasphemous.Here:
On the day of Pentecost, there were millions of such persons.You asked: "If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith..." yet you cannot provide even a shred of proof that such a person exists, or ever has existed. Just as easily, but most likely (if you have the faith) true, I could say that "on the day of Pentecost", no one died until they chose to either want to know the faith, in which case God saw to it that they got that chance, or they chose to not want to know the faith. Those who wanted to know got baptized and professed the true faith before God took them, those who did not want to know died in their sin.
You asked: "If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith..." yet you cannot provide even a shred of proof that such a person exists, or ever has existed. Just as easily, but most likely (if you have the faith) true, I could say that "on the day of Pentecost", no one died until they chose to either want to know the faith, in which case God will see to it that they got that chance, or they chose to not want to know the faith. Those who wanted to know got baptized and professed the true faith before God took them, those who did not want to know died in their sin.The premise implicit in your assertion is that on the day of Pentecost, every man in the whole world had heard the Gospel.
One would have to have no faith whatsoever in God and His Providence to believe such a person ever even existed, because if such a one ever did exist, that would mean God created that person for hell.
This is not complicated - unless you have no faith.
Saints calling things de fide doesn't matter much to you when it comes to the infallibility of canonisations, but when it suits you you're sure to bring it up.
St. Alphonsus also never said implicit baptism of desire is de fide.
The premise implicit in your assertion is that on the day of Pentecost, every man in the whole world had heard the Gospel.The premise explicit in your assertion is that God created some souls for hell - but thankfully, not you. That God could reach you, but He could not reach certain people in time before they died. :facepalm:
I really have no proclivity to carry on with such persons.
The premise explicit in your assertion is that God created some souls for hell - but thankfully, not you. That God could reach you, but He could not reach certain people in time before they died. :facepalm:::)
I agree, you have no proclivity, nor faith in God apparently.
Then I guess you will easily dismiss this:I guess you will easily dismiss this:
An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7
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.”
::)Yes, that's about all you can say. Hard to believe you went to seminary, yet believe that there are souls out there that died without ever having a chance to find out about the faith. Would that thinking even fit in with SSPX?
Yes, that's about all you can say. Hard to believe you went to seminary, yet believe that there are souls out there that died without ever having a chance to find out about the faith. Would that thinking even fit in with SSPX?
My question is:
If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith, in what way would he remain just (ie., such damnation would be an injustice, which would impute imperfection to god, which is impossible)?
Sean,Like there aren't 250 other threads in which I have told you what the Church and I believe?
What exactly do you believe?
That a catechumen can be saved by baptism of desire, if they die before they are baptized (Explicit baptism of desire)
That a person who wants to be a Catholic and believes at a minimum in the Incarnation and the Trinity, can be saved if they die before they become a catechumen ( Implicit baptism of desire)
That a person can be saved who does not want to be a Catholic, does not want to be baptized and does not believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, like Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jєωs.... (salvation by belief in a God that rewards)
That a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox can be saved without converting.
I believe baptism (water, or explicit or implicit desire for it) are necessary for salvation.
... the loss of the beatific vision which they experienced at their particular judgment.
A God who would do this would be unjust, which ought to show the Feeneyite error.
So, here again another admission that this "theology" derives from an imputation of "injustice" to God. That requires a lot of hubris.
#1) You do realize, don't you, that there can not be any injustice in God not granting the beatific vision to anyone for any reason? You do realize that this is the textbook definition of grace? You spent time in a seminary and you know not these basics? Human nature is in fact incapable on its own of sustaining supernatural life and the granting of such a gift is above the nature of man and not required in justice. It is granted only as a mercy and a free gift. That is why those in Limbo are said to enjoy a perfect happiness, perfect, that is, in accordance with the capacity and design of their nature.
#2) You don't even believe in God's Providence. if a person was born into and lived in circuмstances which did not allow him a chance to know the faith, do you not think that this too was from the mercy of God? Even Bishop Williamson taught this, that in such cases it's because God foreknew that such a person would not correspond accordingly and would end up meriting a worse eternal fate. Most saints believe that the vast majority are lost, even of those who were exposed to the faith. And their eternal fate is worse than that of those who were not exposed to the faith.
#3) You really believe that God is incapable of bringing the enlightenment of faith to ANYONE? What kind of God do you believe in? St. Thomas taught that if one were properly disposed, God would enlighten him by a direct inspiration or else send a preacher of the faith.
You think as one without any faith whatsoever, without any believe in Divine Providence, and without even a rudimentary understanding of supernatural grace.
You start with the hubris to assert: "If God does [such and such], He would be unjust." Only in your hubris. Your pea brain is incapable of processing why certain bad things happen. You could stretch that logic forever. In fact, one common argument from that same faithless mode of thinking runs as follows: "It is incompatible with God's mercy for God to create souls whom He foreknows are destined for eternal suffering in Hell; a merciful God would just not have created them in the first place."
As Catholics with supernatural faith, we know with absolute certainty that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful, even if we are too stupid to understand the particulars regarding any given scenario.
Catholic theology doesn't start with emotional considerations made out of ignorance. We find the principles in God's Revelation and we draw conclusions from there.
So then baptism (or basically anything, really) is "necessary" for salvation ... which is the same thing as saying that nothing is.
Loudestmouth-God put all the souls that had a chance of becoming Catholics in the vicinity of the Apostles. And they converted and were saved, or the souls that were of good will, did not die but received an apostle at a later time in their life. It is not very complicated...
Yes, it is I (and not you) who recoils at the suggestion that God is unjust by damning those who never had the chance to come to the faith.
Conversely, it is you, and not I, who attribute this defect to him when you assert such are damned.
Question: Can you tell me how those in China, who were dying the day after Pentecost, had the chance to receive water baptism?
Loudestmouth-God knew that those in China who died were not of good will and he kept the souls of good will alive until an apostle or disciple came later in their life. Lord Giveth Lord Taketh. All of them who died before the missionaries came are in hell.
Please explain to me how the people dying in China the day after Pentecost had the chance for water baptism.
In doing so, please come up with something better than, "God sent millions of angels to baptize them."
But if they never had the chance for water baptism (or even the explicit desire for it, since the faith which comes by hearing, was never preached to them) how then did they have the chance for salvation, as they surely did?
It could only be through implicit baptism of desire, which is in fact the teaching of the Church.
Yet the Feenyite heretic denies this, and imagines that God is sending those who never had the chance for water baptism to hell, and therefore impute injustice to God.
Question: Can you tell me how those in China, who were dying the day after Pentecost, had the chance to receive water baptism?
God put all the souls that had a chance of becoming Catholics in the vicinity of the Apostles. And they converted and were saved, or the souls that were of good will, did not die but received an apostle at a later time in their life. It is not very complicated...This is the kind of wishful thinking which is necessary to make Feeneyism tick.
Yes everyone who died on Pentecost not in Palestine, are in hell.
God knew that those in China who died were not of good will and he kept the souls of good will alive until an apostle or disciple came later in their life. Lord Giveth Lord Taketh. All of them who died before the missionaries came are in hell.Completely gratuitous (and defying common sense).
You've got nothing but insults, since you are incapable of actually addressing the argument.
This question ignores the entire previous post.
If, in a relative (or proximate) sense, they did not have the opportunity to receive Baptism, it was because God so ordered things in His divine Providence that they not receive the opportunity. For those born into these circuмstances it was either a punishment for sin and an act of mercy to spare them a worse eternal fate, or some combination of the two.
Yet, in the absolute sense, EVERYONE has the opportunity to receive Baptism. If necessary, God would have miraculously transported one of the Apostles to a dying man's location to Baptize him. And that would have been the extraordinary approach of God. In His ordinary approach, for the vast majority of those who died that way, He deprived them of the opportunity (in the proximate and not absolute sense) for various reasons of justice and mercy known only to Him, and which you are in no position to judge.
O ye of little faith.
Ah! They did not receive the opportunity!
Thank you!
So let's say I wont the lottery, became rich, and decided to give everyone in my parish $100,000.Here:
I am not required to give this to anyone.
But there's this one guy in particular who's a jerk, so I don't give him any money. Is that "unust"? Was he entitled in justice to this gift in the first place? No.
Then there's another guy there whom I know will reject the gift (let's say I know this infallibly), would it be "unjust" for me not to go up to him and make the offer? Of course not.
In the second case, there's no injustice because this is a free gift that is not required in justice.
In the first case, the person not getting the gift is the result of his own sin.
Like there aren't 250 other threads in which I have told you what the Church and I believe?Please answer my question as I asked it. There are four questions.
You can find it very ably set out in any preconciliar catechism:
I believe baptism (water, or explicit or implicit desire for it) are necessary for salvation.
How that spins in the Feeneyite mind, I cannot control.
Consequently, the idea that some are predestined to hell ("negetive predestination") is heretical (which is also why the Feeneyite is heretical).
No one has said anything like that, you ignorant baboon.Says the erratic fellow who moments ago accused me of being capable of nothing but insults.
Your aptitude for basic logic is non-existent. You "reason" like a woman.
Please answer my question as I asked it. There are four questions.Sorry, I beat you to it:
No one has said anything like that, you ignorant baboon.:baby:
Your aptitude for basic logic is non-existent. You "reason" like a woman.
Here:The comment at the end has nothing to do with the quote above it. It appears that you do not understand predestination. Maybe this'll help you to understand.
"Just as it is God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07131b.htm), so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm) (Denz., n. 795). Though God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) preordained both eternal happiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07131b.htm) and the good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm) works (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm) of the elect (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htm) (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), much less to sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm), and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) and members of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) and of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) (Denz., nn. 628, 631)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)
Consequently, the idea that some are predestined to hell ("negetive predestination") is heretical (which is also why the Feeneyite is heretical).
The comment at the end has nothing to do with the quote above it. It appears that you do not understand predestination.LOL...it came from the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Predestination."
Sorry, I beat you to it:You mistook me for Stubborn? It was I, Last Tradhican who asked you the four question, you never asked me six.
Please answer the six questions I asked before you evaded them by asking 4.
You mistook me for Stubborn? It was I, Last Tradhican who asked you the four question, you never asked me six.They remain unanswered by any and all Feeneyites.
The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.
LOL...it came from the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Predestination."You wrote "Consequently, the idea that some are predestined to hell ("negetive predestination") is heretical".
Sean,I asked you 4 simple questions requiring only a yes or no answer. Are you going to answer them or should I just log-off and dismiss you?
What exactly do you believe?
That a catechumen can be saved by baptism of desire, if they die before they are baptized (Explicit baptism of desire)?
That a person who wants to be a Catholic and believes at a minimum in the Incarnation and the Trinity, can be saved if they die before they become a catechumen ( Implicit baptism of desire)
That a person can be saved who does not want to be a Catholic, does not want to be baptized and does not believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, like Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jєωs.... (salvation by belief in a God that rewards)?
That a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox can be saved without converting?
Says the erratic fellow who moments ago accused me of being capable of nothing but insults.
:laugh2: :laugh1:
SeanJohnson is arguing that it's unjust for God not to offer something a person who doesn't want it.
Loudestmouth is arguing either that God is just for damning people who never had a chance to be saved, or, that all those millions who never heard of the faith were the recipients of a miraculous intervention of God to water baptize them.Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
The former is heretical and blasphemous, and the latter is stupid...but its what is needed to make Feeneyism "work."
Loudestmouth is arguing either that God is just for damning people who never had a chance to be saved, or, that all those millions who never heard of the faith were the recipients of a miraculous intervention of God to water baptize them.Fr. De Smet, S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: “New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi Mission, and my Superior, Father Verhaegen gives me hope that I will be sent. How happy I would be could I spend myself for the salvation of so many souls, who are lost because they have never known truth!”
The former is heretical and blasphemous, and the latter is stupid...but its what is needed to make Feeneyism "work."
Yes, it is I (and not you) who recoils at the suggestion that God is unjust by damning those who never had the chance to come to the faith.Sean, you’re missing the point that God tells us in Scripture to not “cast pearls before swine.” St Thomas tells us that God does not give the Faith to those who don’t even follow the natural law. As the old saying goes, “grace builds on nature”. Those that are sinners and who don’t even follow their own pagan, Muslim or Protestant religions (because they are corrupted by their own sins) wouldn’t accept any part of the Faith (which fact God knows because He can read all hearts). The Hindu religion, for example, is awash in pornography and filth; it is part of their culture. How can such men appreciate the supernatural goodness of God when they don’t even appreciate the natural goodness in earth?
Fr. De Smet, S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: “New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi Mission, and my Superior, Father Verhaegen gives me hope that I will be sent. How happy I would be could I spend myself for the salvation of so many souls, who are lost because they have never known truth!”
(https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn315)
What a dirty feeneyite that Fr DeSmet was.
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’” (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#_edn312)
Debate over.
Sean, you’re missing the point that God tells us in Scripture to not “cast pearls before swine.” St Thomas tells us that God does not give the Faith to those who don’t even follow the natural law. As the old saying goes, “grace builds on nature”. Those that are sinners and who don’t even follow their own pagan, Muslim or Protestant religions (because they are corrupted by their own sins) wouldn’t accept any part of the Faith (which fact God knows because He can read all hearts). The Hindu religion, for example, is awash in pornography and filth; it is part of their culture. How can such men appreciate the supernatural goodness of God when they don’t even appreciate the natural goodness in earth?
.
Your false assumption in all of this is that there have been billions of people in history, since Pentecost, who haven’t heard of the Faith, yet if they did, they would actually care. Newsflash: Most people don’t care about God in general and most people (even Catholics) go to hell. This is the reason why most missionaries are exalted amongst all saints - because most of them were killed by the people who were supposed to “accept” the Faith. Missionaries were marching to almost certain death. It’s was an act of supreme sacrifice for such little (if any) results. Most pagans heard the gospel and ignored it. Those that never heard, would’ve ignored as well. It’s a fact of history.
.
Those Indians that were open to God, He cared for. Bl. Mary of Agreda bilocated to America to preach to some Indian tribes (not all) years before the missionaries came. They were ready for the Baptism when it arrived. The Lord is a Lord of the harvest. He knows which plants to water and which will not take root.
No, YOU are missing the point that baptism of desire is de fide (Trent), and your Feeneyite heresy is causing you to reject it.This has no bearing on my point, and no relationship to your earlier point I was responding to. You’re jumping around and mixing up arguments.
Its also possible that there are some of good will who have never heard by human preachers, but all of them had visions/angels and at least internally affirmed the Catholic faith before they died.If you’re going to play the what-if game, why don’t you give to God the full recognition of His omnipotent powers?
If you’re going to play the what-if game, why don’t you give to God the full recognition of His omnipotent powers?I suppose what I had in mind is that its possible no witnesses would see the person believing internally, whereas witnesses WOULD see the water baptism performed. Though even this, honestly, God could work around.
.
We know from Scripture that God worked a miracle to provide water baptism to Cornelius and others. We know from Tradition that St Patrick (and many other saints) raised dead men to life, in order to baptize. We know that God has allowed saints to bilocate and preach the gospel.
.
So in your what-if example of God sending an angel or a vision about the Faith, why can’t you imagine that God would also provide water baptism? Can He do the former but not the latter?
.
Padre Pio bilocated to hear a man’s dying confession but God wouldn’t allow another saint to do the same for baptism? Let us not put limits on God!
.
Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear. (Isaiah 59:1)
I have answered your faithless posts, your problem is that you have zero confidence in God's Providence, add to that no faith in His love, mercy and justice. You have no confidence because you lack faith, and make no mistake about it, it all starts with faith, without which you cannot imagine that God can get to a soul of good will so he can learn the Catholic faith and be baptized before death.
Lol: It looks like I am tying you in knots. You are attributing your own heretical Feeneyism to me?
PS: You have another 5-6 posts to defend above.
I have answered your faithless posts, your problem is that you have zero confidence in God's Providence, add to that no faith in His love, mercy and justice. You have no confidence because you lack faith, and make no mistake about it, it all starts with faith, without which you cannot imagine that God can get to a soul of good will so he can learn the Catholic faith and be baptized before death.Lol...says the man who embraces condemned double (aka “negative”) predestination to make his Jansenist/Calvinist system work!
Your liberal ideas make believe that God was too busy that day, so like a sweet old grandpa rocking on His rocking chair, being on "automatic", the guy dies on schedule, so God just lets the guy in while He judges everyone else. Instead of "I never knew you, depart from me", you have God saying "Welcome stranger."
It all starts with faith, which you need to have, or you will have no reason to stop promoting your liberal ideas.
What does Sean believe? No one knows. He argues and argues and quotes Ligouri and a catechism which he says Pius X wrote, but he does not say what he believes. Before anyone tries to teach or debate with someone, they should establish what they are debating about. I asked him 4 questions that would reveal what he believes, and he does not answer them, so unless some of you like to fight and argue, I would not waste my time writing to him until he makes it clear where he stands in the evolution of salvation of non-Catholics. As it stands, I do not see any evidence from him that there is a difference between what he writes and what was spelled out at Vatican II.
Lol...says the man who embraces condemned double (aka “negative”) predestination to make his Jansenist/Calvinist system work!Because you have next to none, all that is left to tell you is, pray for an increase in the Catholic faith.
The frothy Feeneyites all lathered up.I don't really get frothy any more since I've accepted that catholics with liberal ideas in this matter, choose to retain their liberal ideas of their own free will and against all Catholic principles as well as numerous de fide teachings.
:popcorn:
I suppose what I had in mind is that its possible no witnesses would see the person believing internally, whereas witnesses WOULD see the water baptism performed. Though even this, honestly, God could work around.Let's look at this another way: When the pope issues a doctrinal statement at a Church council, using his power of infallibility, this is God speaking directly to us, through the pope. The Church has thrice-defined that baptism is, according to Scripture, a sacrament of water and the Holy Ghost, which ALL need to gain heaven. This is the starting point. If you do not believe this simple truth, as it is written, you are a heretic.
So you're right. He could. Whether he actually does in every case, seems much less clear to me.
I'm not sure the St Pius X Catechism DEMANDS you believe in implicit baptism of desire, and I say that even though I do think its a possibilityIn The Bread of Life, Fr. Feeney said: "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."
It says "at least implicit", which would seem to allow for the POSSIBILITY that it has to be explicit, but would "AT LEAST" demand implicit (ie. you *can't* say someone can be saved without *at least* implicit baptism of desire.)
I will note also that even if God does choose to in some cases accept implicit baptism of desire, you still have infants who wind up in Limbo who presumably never "had a chance" to be saved. So I still don't see how Sean's argument works.
I guess I'm in the weird position of thinking Baptism of Desire advocates are right, at least in so far as I don't think God or the dogmas of the Church have actually made clear that God does not work in this way (contra the Feneeyites who think it has) but I don't think you could really charge God with injustice if he did in fact refuse to bring to heaven anyone who wasn't water baptized or consciously Catholic, and I freely submit to it if that is in fact what God is doing and I don't understand.
It says "at least implicit", which would seem to allow for the POSSIBILITY that it has to be explicit, but would "AT LEAST" demand implicit (ie. you *can't* say someone can be saved without *at least* implicit baptism of desire.)Could you explain how you understand the difference between explicit and implicit desire? Sean, i'm curious how you define it too.
In The Bread of Life, Fr. Feeney said: "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."
Can you please explain how one in a state of original sin (ie., one who has not been baptized) could nevertheless be in a state of justification (ie., sanctifying grace) before baptism?Certainly, that's very easy - but first, please reply to: "If you can name any situation where God cannot secure the sacrament for anyone at any time, then please, name it."
Take the case of an infant who dies unbaptized ... whether through abortion or otherwise.Seán continues to ignore this point, even though it rips a huge hole in his argument. He says God would be unjust to let a man in China die without being given a chance to be baptised, and yet a baby not being given a chance to be baptised is fine by him? It's hypocrisy at its finest.
QuoteAnd that it's rare.
It is the case for unbaptized children who die below the age of reason. Whether it's rare for the unbaptized above the age of reason, or frequent, or does not happen at all is debatable.
Yet 99% of the world, on the day after Pentecost, had never heard the Gospel.First of all, the known world HAD heard of the Jєωιѕн religion, being it had been around for 100s of years at that point. Those that rejected the Jєωιѕн faith, stuck with their pagan religions of the devil. Those that would not accept God the Father in the Jєωιѕн religion, would not accept His Son in the Catholic one. So to argue that 99% of the world had not heard the Gospel is a lie.
According to the Feeneyite, therefore, they were all damned, despite never having had a chance at salvation.
St Alphonsus' Theoloy
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.”
#2) You don't even believe in God's Providence. if a person was born into and lived in circuмstances which did not allow him a chance to know the faith, do you not think that this too was from the mercy of God? Even Bishop Williamson taught this, that in such cases it's because God foreknew that such a person would not correspond accordingly and would end up meriting a worse eternal fate. Most saints believe that the vast majority are lost, even of those who were exposed to the faith. And their eternal fate is worse than that of those who were not exposed to the faith.
"Just as it is God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07131b.htm), so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm) (Denz., n. 795). Though God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) preordained both eternal happiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07131b.htm) and the good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm) works (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm) of the elect (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htm) (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), much less to sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm), and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) and members of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) and of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) (Denz., nn. 628, 631)."
"The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 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.”
YOU are missing the point that baptism of desire is de fide (Trent), and your Feeneyite heresy is causing you to reject it.Neither Fr Feeney or any of us here deny Trent's statement on BOD and justification. See below from Fr Feeney's own books:
First of all, the known world HAD heard of the Jєωιѕн religion, being it had been around for 100s of years at that point. Those that rejected the Jєωιѕн faith, stuck with their pagan religions of the devil. Those that would not accept God the Father in the Jєωιѕн religion, would not accept His Son in the Catholic one. So to argue that 99% of the world had not heard the Gospel is a lie.
Trent explains that one can achieve justification by a desire for baptism (i.e. it's actually more than a desire, but a promise or vow). This vow can be made explicitly (i.e. openly/publically) or implicitly (privately/silently). But the desire/promise/vow must be made for baptism, specifically. A desire simply for "God" or "heaven" by one who does not know or understand Baptism, is not sufficient.
.
St Alphonsus incorrectly says that BOD provides salvation, when Trent only says it provides justification. St Alphonsus admits that this desire does not give the "wedding garment"/baptismal character (which also means that person is not a child of God, nor an heir to heaven) which Scripture says is necessary to enter heaven, yet he contradictorily says BOD "saves". He also admits it does not remit the guilt for sin. Ergo, a person who dies justified, without sacramental baptism, goes to Limbo. In this sense, they are "saved" from eternal fire, though Limbo is part of hell. This is the only explanation that makes doctrinal sense (at the present time, until and if the Church clarifies the matter in the future).
Umm...to protect your position, you are “correcting” St. Alphonsus on what Trent meant?You must have missed What St. Alphonsus said here. (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/condemned-savation-for-good-willed-ignorant-pagans/msg662331/#msg662331)
LMAO
I just don't get why everyone is being so rude to everyone else on this thread. Like why can't we have a discussion/debate while assuming the best of each other, assuming everyone here wants to be a Catholic, and that nobody is *intentionally* being heretical? Is there some dynamic here from before I was here that I don't really understand?I agree!
I just don't get why everyone is being so rude to everyone else on this thread. Like why can't we have a discussion/debate while assuming the best of each other, assuming everyone here wants to be a Catholic, and that nobody is *intentionally* being heretical? Is there some dynamic here from before I was here that I don't really understand?What it seems to boil down to is this, BODers believe catechisms are infallible teachings of the Church, they aren't, but they'll defend and take that belief to the grave with them of their own free will. Defined dogmas teach according to Scripture, John 3:5 to be specific, also Eph. 4:5.
What it seems to boil down to is this, BODers believe catechisms are infallible teachings of the Church, they aren't, but they'll defend and take that belief to the grave with them of their own free will. Defined dogmas teach according to Scripture, John 3:5 to be specific, also Eph. 4:5.On the one hand, no, catechisms are definitely not infallible. They can be wrong.
Now,Eph 3:5 says; "One Lord, one faith, one baptism".
How many kinds of baptisms are there? The catechism answers "Three". This proves catechisms are fallible text books to everyone except BODers.
Trent says that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation is anathema. Since a BOD is not a sacrament, this proves no one can attain salvation via a BOD to everyone except BODers.
And the debate goes on. BODers quote saints as if they are the Church while the rest of us quote dogma because that really is the Church. Anyway, the same tired old debates have been going on on forums since the internet was invented I think - to the point that most forums have banned the subject completely - because the debates can get pretty heated.
On the one hand, no, catechisms are definitely not infallible. They can be wrong.Well there is the debate. You believe the catechism can be wrong, and they can. Yet you doubt the catechism writers could have made such a blunder. And we both agree on this. The debate enters because you try to justify two contradicting teachings whereas I say that was no blunder, I say that even if it were added on good faith, it was put in there on purpose and has mislead many.
On the other hand, I doubt the catechism writers were so stupid as to have missed an argument as obvious as you point out here. I also, honestly, think this argument is reminiscent of the way Protestants use scripture, its comparable to "scripture says that Jesus is the *only* mediator while Catholics say Mary is Mediatrix as well." And frankly, I notice this *a lot* on this forum, when its convenient people on this forum seem to often try to force scriptural dichotomies in similar ways to Protestants.
If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith, in what way would he remain just?Sean, your logic means that any unbaptized child who dies before the age of reason (5 or 6 yrs old) is an example of God being unjust, since catholic doctrine says that unbaptized children go to Limbo/hell. Is this what you're saying?
Well there is the debate. You believe the catechism can be wrong, and they can. Yet you doubt the catechism writers could have made such a blunder. And we both agree on this. The debate enters because you try to justify two contradicting teachings whereas I say that was no blunder, I say that even if it were added on good faith, it was put in there on purpose and has mislead many.Hold on, your argument is that they did this on purpose?
There are some things in the otherwise excellent Baltimore Catechism that need correcting.
So I am asking you out right, Scripture says: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", the question is, how many kinds of baptisms are there? (if you don't answer with the obvious answer, then the debate goes on) that's really all there is to it.
On the one hand, no, catechisms are definitely not infallible. They can be wrong.
On the other hand, I doubt the catechism writers were so stupid as to have missed an argument as obvious as you point out here.
It's because the catechism writers have elevated the theological opinions of saints such as St Alphonsus to a status of "de fide", just like Sean does. Such questions which are not settled should not be in the catechism at all, until the Church decides the matter clearly.Well I doubt St Alphonsus was just completely ignorant that "one faith, one Lord, one baptism" obviously refutes the idea of BOD. I can't reiterate enough that *that particular argument* exactly resembles the kinds of dichotomies I've seen Protestants use with scripture to try to refute Catholicism. One really basic one is "Oh, Rome says Mary is Mediatrix but the Bible says Christ is the only mediator so WE WIN." I could easily, easily think of others. Catholicism is a religion of fine distinctions. Its the PROTESTANTS who flatten everything out and assume things are obvious based on the exact wording of a scriptural text (usually.)
.
But because most want to (their personal desire, not based on doctrine) believe that their non-Catholic friends and family have a chance to be saved, and because they can't humanly understand the mysteries of Divine Providence (which is none of us can, so why are they trying?) and how God knows who will or won't accept His graces...because of all of this, they accept the theological OPINION of BOD as a doctrine and put it into the catechism. It's an example of liberalism.
I'm not sure if BOD is a dogma, but if I were going to try to argue that it is, I'd argue from Trent.At least that is an honest and logical approach. Except Trent does not clarify whether BOD provides heaven. It only says it gives justification.
Hold on, your argument is that they did this on purpose?It is my opinion that they did this on purpose, whether due to ignorance or malice I cannot guess, but certainly it's not something in there by accident. This forum alone proves it is a teaching that contradicts Scripture, tradition and infallible dogma.
My problem with this is that the logic seems similar to the Protestant "one mediator" argument. If a fine distinction can be used in the latter case, it can be used in the former case as well.
I believe the answer to your question is that there's one baptism, and three different ways of receiving it, or at least, I believe that's the pro BOD answer.
Seán continues to ignore this point, even though it rips a huge hole in his argument. He says God would be unjust to let a man in China die without being given a chance to be baptised, and yet a baby not being given a chance to be baptised is fine by him? It's hypocrisy at its finest.
At least that is an honest and logical approach. Except Trent does not clarify whether BOD provides heaven. It only says it gives justification.Logically, I don't see how a justified man who dies justified could not wind up in heaven. That doesn't seem consistent.
.
Contrary to popular belief and many lies, Feeneyites do not believe that a justified, unbaptized person goes to hell (and that this is "de fide"). We only say "it's not clear." Our opinion is they go to Limbo. We hold this question as still unsettled.
.
BOD'ers, on the other hand, call Feeneyites heretics. And they also ignore the fact that many evil men have used this unsettled question to push the boundaries of salvation from a catechumen to anyone who simply "desires God" (see V2). This is what Feeneyites call "heresy".
.
BOD is not a heresy. Yet neither is it "de fide". The heresy is in the application of BOD anyone who isn't a formal, public catechumen. If the Church came out tomorrow and declared that an unbaptized, justified person goes to heaven, i'd believe it in a heartbeat.
BOD is not a heresy. Yet neither is it "de fide". The heresy is in the application of BOD anyone who isn't a formal, public catechumen. If the Church came out tomorrow and declared that an unbaptized, justified person goes to heaven, i'd believe it in a heartbeat.
Logically, I don't see how a justified man who dies justified could not wind up in heaven. That doesn't seem consistent.
Except Trent does not clarify whether BOD provides heaven. It only says it gives justification.
The only thing that I'm not clear on is the idea that its "heresy" to apply BOD to "anyone who isn't a formal, public catechumen". That's the thing that hasn't been adequetely demonstrated to me yet, and I think some people here are elevating their own, understandable but nevertheless definitely questionable, reading of old church docuмents as though it was equivalent to an actual rebuke by the Church.
Trent requires the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof.Someone posted a while back that the translation from latin to English was wrong and that Trent said "and" and not "or". In other words, to receive baptism one must receive the sacrament AND have the desire to. This totally changes the meaning and destroys BOD. Can anyone confirm?
You mistake Fr. Feeney for Trent.
Trent teaches that noone is saved without a sacrament.
Trent teaches that there is no baptism without water.
Trent teaches that you need the laver of regeneration as well as the desire for it.
It is intellectual dishonesty to say that Trent mentions BoD. Trent requires the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof.
The statement "Noone can write a thesis on rocket science without a pen or a pencil" does neither imply
- that folks with a pen can write a thesis on rocket science
- that folks with a pencil can write a thesis on rocket science
- that folks with a pencil and a pen can write a thesis on rocket science
To be able to write a thesis on rocket science, much more than pen and/or pencil is needed.
The Council of Trent explains in detail what is needed. You just have to read the whole Decree on Justification (spoiler: water, the sacrament of baptism, as well as desire thereof are included).
That is because it's the constant teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. So, for 1600 years, not a single Catholic anywhere taught or believed otherwise, and yet a Jesuit comes along in 1600 rejecting this teaching, and suddenly it's open for questioning? So something taught infallibly by the OUM and the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers suddenly becomes no longer infallibly taught because a handful of innovators began to question it? Nonsense. While this has NOT been explicitly condemned by the Church since that time, it's objectively heretical without a doubt. And the greatest mistake (by omission) ever made in the history of the Church has been the failure to explicitly condemn this error. This omission is what ultimately led to Vatican II. Father Feeney was the only one who saw and predicted where it was going even before Vatican II happened.If its really the case that every single Catholic taught this for 1600 years, then I'd agree that that conclusion follows. That seems like a much clearer argument than simply citing the dogmatic definitions (for reasons I've pointed out previously.)
It is my opinion that they did this on purpose, whether due to ignorance or malice I cannot guess, but certainly it's not something in there by accident. This forum alone proves it is a teaching that contradicts Scripture, tradition and infallible dogma.You're missing his point. The Bible says there is one mediator, Christ. However the also Church says Mary is also mediatrix. Church teaching cannot contradict the Bible, so someone could say that the Church calling Mary mediatrix creates two mediators, and that therefore the teaching is false since the Bible says there is just one. They would be wrong however, because the Church makes a finer distinction between what mediator means for Christ and what it means for Mary.
The prot's logic has it's foundation in "Christ did everything, we only need to accept Him as our Savior to be saved." Whereas we Catholics must be told by the Church what we must do in order to be saved, which the prots wholly, some vehemently, reject. So I do not get the connection you are trying to make.
Being that there is only one baptism, and being that Our Lord specifically made the matter water, and He specifically made the form "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and since the recipient must desire to receive that one baptism in this manner, if there were any other possible way to receive that baptism, we do not know of it, as such, any other method would only be speculation.
Also of interest is the fact that the only ones who promote a BOD, are already baptized. You will never hear an unbaptized person promote it - never.
If its really the case that every single Catholic taught this for 1600 years, then I'd agree that that conclusion follows.Well OK I wanna backtrack from this a bit. I'd also want to know why they thought the conclusion follows. Since, if I recall correctly, the idea of invincible ignorance was originally a reaction to learning of the existence of the New World. That is kind of understandably a paradigm shifter. I'll have to think through the implications of that.
His point is that the apparent contradiction between BOD and one baptism could be resolved by finer distinction in the same way the mediator problem is resolved.ByzCat makes an excellent point. Most Feeneyites would say we need the Church to give us a finer distinction because as it is now, there seems to be a contradiction. Most BODers say, no, there's no contradiction - either water or desire is ok. You're a heretic for asking for a distinction because Trent mentions desire, therefore desire is "de fide".
Someone posted a while back that the translation from latin to English was wrong and that Trent said "and" and not "or". In other words, to receive baptism one must receive the sacrament AND have the desire to. This totally changes the meaning and destroys BOD. Can anyone confirm?
Well OK I wanna backtrack from this a bit. I'd also want to know why they thought the conclusion follows. Since, if I recall correctly, the idea of invincible ignorance was originally a reaction to learning of the existence of the New World. That is kind of understandably a paradigm shifter. I'll have to think through the implications of that.
You're missing his point. The Bible says there is one mediator, Christ. However the also Church says Mary is also mediatrix. Church teaching cannot contradict the Bible, so someone could say that the Church calling Mary mediatrix creates two mediators, and that therefore the teaching is false since the Bible says there is just one. They would be wrong however, because the Church makes a finer distinction between what mediator means for Christ and what it means for Mary.Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Prots are all mixed up to start with anyway. As Fr. Wathen said, Catholics do not read the bible in the same way as protestants. For example, we understand that not the bible, but the Church is the source of our faith, and the Church points to the bible as a reference. In other words, the bible for us Catholics is like a text book, or a manual, or a prayer book. But the protestants look to the bible as the chief source of the teaching of his religion, yet as a rule, they all interpret it differently.
His point is that the same logic could be applied to BOD. Declaring BOD as false because it appears to propose more than one baptism is the same as declaring that the teaching that Mary is mediatrix is false because it appears to propose more than one mediator. His point is that the apparent contradiction between BOD and one baptism could be resolved by finer distinction in the same way the mediator problem is resolved.
ByzCat makes an excellent point. Most Feeneyites would say we need the Church to give us a finer distinction because as it is now, there seems to be a contradiction. Most BODers say, no, there's no contradiction - either water or desire is ok. You're a heretic for asking for a distinction because Trent mentions desire, therefore desire is "de fide".I'm OK with this. I just don't see how Stubborn's argument, the particular way he's making it, doesn't lead to a bunch of other false Protestant dichotomies (the one that immediately keeps coming to mind is how Christ can be "The only mediator between God and man" and yet Mary is also Mediatrix and the priests are in a sense mediators. Protestants would just say "Contradiction!" but we know that through fine distinctions, there's no contradiction between the Biblical teaching and the teaching of the Church.) Even if I knew baptism of desire didn't exist, I'd still be calling this line of reasoning out because its problematic.
You're missing his point. The Bible says there is one mediator, Christ. However the also Church says Mary is also mediatrix. Church teaching cannot contradict the Bible, so someone could say that the Church calling Mary mediatrix creates two mediators, and that therefore the teaching is false since the Bible says there is just one. They would be wrong however, because the Church makes a finer distinction between what mediator means for Christ and what it means for Mary.Yes. Forlorn *exactly* got my point.
His point is that the same logic could be applied to BOD. Declaring BOD as false because it appears to propose more than one baptism is the same as declaring that the teaching that Mary is mediatrix is false because it appears to propose more than one mediator. His point is that the apparent contradiction between BOD and one baptism could be resolved by finer distinction in the same way the mediator problem is resolved.
If its really the case that every single Catholic taught this for 1600 years, then I'd agree that that conclusion follows. That seems like a much clearer argument than simply citing the dogmatic definitions (for reasons I've pointed out previously.)
Right. I don't believe that Trent teaches it either. Trent teaches the desire for Baptism to be a necessary but not a sufficient cause of justification. But it's ALSO true that Trent makes no mention of salvation, but only of justification. Trent later explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation.One of the qualifications for being a believer in salvation of Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jєωs ...…. must be that one must be ludicrously inconsistent.
Right. I don't believe that Trent teaches it either. Trent teaches the desire for Baptism to be a necessary but not a sufficient cause of justification. But it's ALSO true that Trent makes no mention of salvation, but only of justification. Trent later explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation.Idiotic:
Someone posted a while back that the translation from latin to English was wrong and that Trent said "and" and not "or". In other words, to receive baptism one must receive the sacrament AND have the desire to. This totally changes the meaning and destroys BOD. Can anyone confirm?Yes:
It is very likely that St Alphonsus (who wrote subtle treatises in Latin) could not distinguish between “and” and “or” in that language.
Idiotic:No worries Lad, Sean appreantly believes that his signature has him covered with every post he makes, it says:
You are suggesting that those who die justified (ie., those dying in a state of sanctifying grace, thereby participating in the divine economy/life of God) could be damned.
Heresy upon heresy to keep the dream alive!
I'm OK with this. I just don't see how Stubborn's argument, the particular way he's making it, doesn't lead to a bunch of other false Protestant dichotomies (the one that immediately keeps coming to mind is how Christ can be "The only mediator between God and man" and yet Mary is also Mediatrix and the priests are in a sense mediators. Protestants would just say "Contradiction!" but we know that through fine distinctions, there's no contradiction between the Biblical teaching and the teaching of the Church.) Even if I knew baptism of desire didn't exist, I'd still be calling this line of reasoning out because its problematic.It is as I said, it all starts with faith. It is through the faith that we understand and have complete confidence in all of those things Catholics are bound believe. Without faith, it is impossible to accept those the things Catholics believe.
As I have asked twice in this thread, once to you, once to Sean, "If you can name any situation where God cannot secure the sacrament for anyone at any time, then please, name it". Well, please, go ahead and name it, or admit there is no such situation and never was nor will be.God can do whatever he wants. I can't speak for Sean, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a non issue.
...it seems possible that Trent wasn't settling this debate.
And honestly, contextually, it seems likely that it wasn't trying to. Because it seems like the real thrust of what Trent is getting at isn't really ruling on BOD, but ruling on Sola Fide. If I recall correctly, in context, its not anathemizing a position on baptism of desire, but anathemizing faith alone.
There's a later Canon which anathematizes the proposition that the Sacrament justifies on its own without the cooperation of the will.
The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only.
Profession of faith
1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
[...]
4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
[...]
14. [...]
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]
There is no such gray area. Catechumens, like anyone else, won't be saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism first. That's truth fallen from heaven and therefore the case without the slighest doubt.Dimondite?
The Council of Trent condemns you, if you keep repeating this heresy about catechumens over and over again. And the Vatican Council requires you to confess that
1.) it is necessary for salvation to receive a sacrament
2.) it is necessary to be saved to confess that it is necessary for salvation to receive a sacrament
Conclusion: God makes sure, that all catechumens which are to be saved actually are saved not without the sacrament of baptism. God cares for his flock. On the other hand, Pax Vobis should not throw away his grace of baptism and his chances to be saved, by contradicting the true catholic faith as specified by the said holy Councils.
Dimondite?
I personally take the hard line approach, Struthio, because I agree, like you, that God wouldn't allow a catechumen to die without baptism, since God decides when everyone dies. Therefore, if God decided a catechumen was to die before baptism, then He had a good reason to not give him the grace of Baptism, which He can decide as the judge of all hearts.
.
However, I still hold that Trent is not totally clear and that St Thomas and others argued for a strict BOD option. Could St Thomas be wrong? Yes, he has been wrong on other topics. Could Trent have been clearer? Yes. Could I be wrong, and Trent was clear enough? Yes. Do I believe that those who preach BOD for non-catechumens are wrong? Absolutely.
Profession of faith
1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
[...]
4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
[...]
14. [...]
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]
Yes sure. Trent could have been clearer. But still, Trent is univocal and leaves no way for anything but the sacrament of baptism, where supernatural faith is infused. Those who defend BoD and/or BoD lack sane reasoning. They construct a sufficent cause from a bare necessity.I can't take people who think guys like St Alphonsus just missed the obvious seriously. And no, I realize Ladislaus and Pax aren't saying that.
For those who would appreciate a more simple declaration. What about the Vatican Council?
Isn't that as simple as needed? It's necessary to receive a sacrament to be saved.
Those who defend BoD do not accept dogma as absolute truth, but rather, in modernist error, as a precept which allows for exceptions. And BoD for a catechumen is in no way different from that. It's just another arbitrary choice of who might benefit from exceptions. The Council of Trent leaves no backdoor open for a catechumen, and the Vatican Council confirms this.
I can't take people who think guys like St Alphonsus just missed the obvious seriously. And no, I realize Ladislaus and Pax aren't saying that.
Like its one thing to say theologians and catechisms aren't infallible, and can err. Its another thing to essentially accuse them of abject stupidity.
I ultimately concluded that the Dimondites are not traditional Catholics for this reason. They don't care what was actually believed in the past, by actual humans. Actual history. They're sola scriptura, with a larger canon.
This particular TYPE of BOD denial seems similar to me.
Yes sure. Trent could have been clearer. But still, Trent is univocal and leaves no way for anything but the sacrament of baptism, where supernatural faith is infused. Those who defend BoD and/or BoD lack sane reasoning. They construct a sufficent cause from a bare necessity.Perhaps Trent could have been clearer, but I think Trent is plenty clear, certainly clear enough to debunk a BOD as is commonly understood - unless "or the desire thereof" is read entirely out of context of that canon, as well as read entirely out of context of the whole Council. Trent says many times that the Sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation. I think if Trent would have explicitly condemned a BOD, like EENS, people would simply insist "that's not what it means" or "it must be understood as the Church understands it."
I find it somewhat amazing how Catholics cannot see how a BOD is the crack through which those outside the Church get into heaven. I also find it a bit incredible that those great saints even taught it, and really incredible that the saints who taught it, did not see how the whole idea is, or at least tends toward or lends itself, to insulting the Divine Providence.
Like its one thing to say theologians and catechisms aren't infallible, and can err. Its another thing to essentially accuse them of abject stupidity.One of the Church Fathers, (St Cyprian I believe?) was condemned for his error that heretics needed to be re-baptized after returning to the Faith.
Vincent of Lérins, in his Commonitory, says that God allows for errors in the teachings of Fathers, Doctors, etc. to prove people, to make sure they love truth more than men.Of course God allows saints to preach errors, saints after all are only human, but for the saints themselves not to see the errors is a bit puzzling to me - particularly in the fact that a BOD ignores or rejects the doctrine of Divine Providence.
One of the Church Fathers, (St Cyprian I believe?) was condemned for his error that heretics needed to be re-baptized after returning to the Faith.I'd submit if the Church corrected me, though given that 99% of the hierarchy is well to the left of me, I don't see it happening any time soon. I would like it if they did clear up the matter one way or another.
St Augustine went back and forth on predestination and what it meant. He also went back and forth on BOD.
St Thomas, a Doctor of the Church, was wrong on the Immaculate Conception (though it was more a lack of understanding of modern science, than a doctrinal error).
St Alphonsus is not immune from error, either.
.
The difference between St Alphonsus and modern day BOD'ers is that St Alphonsus, even though he argued that BOD was "de fide", would readily cast aside his speculations if the Church had corrected him. While most BOD'ers defend this idea as if it is "de fide" and admit no room for error.
.
St Alphonsus died in 1787, at the beginning of the liberalization of the Church. It's not surprising that his error was not corrected.
Sean, ByzCat and I have had a great discussion. It's not driven by mania, but by mutual understanding and a search for truth. You check back every 40-50 pages because you can't control your emotions long enough to have a mature conversation.And the mania continues...
Can someone make up a quiz we can take to know if we are Feeneyite or not? It might sound silly but I really wouldn't mind it. I can't follow all this. I need something straight forward! To the point.
How To Know You're a Feeneyite in 5 Questions or Less
Can someone make up a quiz we can take to know if we are Feeneyite or not? It might sound silly but I really wouldn't mind it. I can't follow all this. I need something straight forward! To the point.
How To Know You're a Feeneyite in 5 Questions or Less
“Question: Can Baptism of Desire save you?
Answer: Never.
Question: Could Baptism of Desire save you if you really believed it could?
Answer: It could not.
Question: Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
Answer: It could.
Question: If you got into the state of justification with the aid of Baptism of Desire, and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
Answer: Never
It's a mistake to call everyone that doesn't believe in Baptism of Desire a follower of Fr. Feeney; a Feeneyite.Nope.
One of the Church Fathers, (St Cyprian I believe?) was condemned for his error that heretics needed to be re-baptized after returning to the Faith.
St Augustine went back and forth on predestination and what it meant. He also went back and forth on BOD.
St Thomas, a Doctor of the Church, was wrong on the Immaculate Conception (though it was more a lack of understanding of modern science, than a doctrinal error).
St Alphonsus is not immune from error, either.
.
The difference between St Alphonsus and modern day BOD'ers is that St Alphonsus, even though he argued that BOD was "de fide", would readily cast aside his speculations if the Church had corrected him. While most BOD'ers defend this idea as if it is "de fide" and admit no room for error.
.
St Alphonsus died in 1787, at the beginning of the liberalization of the Church. It's not surprising that his error was not corrected.
Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Bernard Of Clairvaux: On Baptism And The Office of the Bishops, pgs. 159 - 160(https://aax-us-east.amazon-adsystem.com/x/c/Qt8HPronNgETEYqsa4i58_oAAAFseWi2LQEAAAFKAbupbzY/https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879075678/ref=as_li_tl?imprToken=eDXlbyXVSV2cEH7O1B1ngw&slotNum=0&ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879075678&linkCode=w61&tag=httpwwwchanco-20)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879075678/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879075678&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 (https://aax-us-east.amazon-adsystem.com/x/c/Qt8HPronNgETEYqsa4i58_oAAAFseWi2LQEAAAFKAbupbzY/https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879075678/ref=as_li_tl?imprToken=eDXlbyXVSV2cEH7O1B1ngw&slotNum=0&ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879075678&linkCode=w61&tag=httpwwwchanco-20)
8. It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars--I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, imitating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices.
Do you know that the word routinely translated as "desire" is the Latin votum? Now the word votum is actually a form the verb volo ... a principle part or inflection of the Latin word that means "to will". So in using the votum, Trent is actually saying that one cannot be justified without the Sacrament (ex opere operato grace) AND the WILL. To claim that Trent is teaching that one can be justified with EITHER the Sacrament OR the will actually undermines the very thing Trent was trying to teach, that justification cannot be willed (in Pelagian and Protestant fashion) without first there being an unmerited grace.
"Mistranslation...'In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace...; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it...'
"One who reads the mistranslation of this passage from Trent would probably think that Trent is teaching that one can enter into the state of grace either through Baptism or by the desire for it. However an accurate translation renders the meaning of Trent totally different. In fact the original Latin of the passage 'except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it,' is 'sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto'.
"True Translation - 'and this translation...cannot be effected WITHOUT...the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'...
"...The subtle change of 'without' to 'except through' changes the entire meaning of the statement. The word 'without' used in this passage means that justification CANNOT happen without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Trent is simply distinguishing between the requirements for infant baptism as opposed to [sic] that of adults. Infants cannot desire baptism. Therefore in their case only the laver of regeneration is required to effect the sacrament. Adults on the other hand must have the desire for the sacrament that they are receiving..."
Baptism of Desire is the inch where people will take a mile. It can be a slippery slope.Because the Church has never explained it, formally. If you talk to 100 BOD'ers, you'll get 100 different answers on how it works, when, and to what extent. Even the Saints do not agree on the specifics. Does this type of variance exist with any other defined dogma?
Trent dogmatically teaches that justification is impossible without either (a) Baptism, or (b) desire for Baptism.Trad123, most Feeneyites (including Fr Feeney) will grant you the above, even if it's debatable. Let's just assume the above is true. The main contention, that which the Church has not explained is the below question that Sean wrote. Can a justified, but non-baptized person go to heaven? Trent NEVER says this is the case. Fr Feeney says he doesn't know. St Thomas says without the indelible mark/wedding garment, it is not certain. St Alphonsus admits that the lack of the baptismal character is problematic. The below question is THE issue which the Church has yet to explain.
Because the Church has never explained it, formally. If you talk to 100 BOD'ers, you'll get 100 different answers on how it works, when, and to what extent. Even the Saints do not agree on the specifics. Does this type of variance exist with any other defined dogma?There's only one "specific" that matters:
Because the Church has never explained it, formally. If you talk to 100 BOD'ers, you'll get 100 different answers on how it works, when, and to what extent. Even the Saints do not agree on the specifics. Does this type of variance exist with any other defined dogma?I agree with BOD but I'm not convinced its a dogma. I just think its clearly allowed at the moment, and I don't think its possible to pull some cheesy one liner from either the Bible or Trent and be like "SEE, ST ALPHONSUS AND ST THOMAS WERE OBVIOUSLY WRONG" (I'm not saying you're doing this BTW, I'm just saying that's what I see from SOME Feeneyites and its a concerning trend.) If someone just isn't convinced of BOD I don't really have an issue with them, and I'm willing to submit to a future church ruling that rules it out, should one be presented. But I think its impossible that its condemned at the moment, and certainly not with a straightforward and obvious argument/
I agree with BOD but I'm not convinced its a dogma. I just think its clearly allowed at the moment, and I don't think its possible to pull some cheesy one liner from either the Bible or Trent and be like "SEE, ST ALPHONSUS AND ST THOMAS WERE OBVIOUSLY WRONG" (I'm not saying you're doing this BTW, I'm just saying that's what I see from SOME Feeneyites and its a concerning trend.) If someone just isn't convinced of BOD I don't really have an issue with them, and I'm willing to submit to a future church ruling that rules it out, should one be presented. But I think its impossible that its condemned at the moment, and certainly not with a straightforward and obvious argument/
The only real debate is whether it is de fide via Trent, or via the continuous ordinary magisterium, or both.Maybe you're right about the continuous ordinary magisterium, but I'd have to figure out precisely how the continuous ordinary magisterium works first. I mean, this is a major point of contention between Sedes and R + Rs, but I haven't found anything close to a clear answer yet. So I'm not sure how it applies to BOD either/
https://www.olrl.org/misc/Feeneyism.pdf
There IS salvation without water baptism.
Can someone make up a quiz we can take to know if we are Feeneyite or not? It might sound silly but I really wouldn't mind it. I can't follow all this. I need something straight forward! To the point.One is either Catholic or not Catholic. There is no such thing as a Feenyite.
How To Know You're a Feeneyite in 5 Questions or Less
The only real debate is whether it is de fide via Trent, or via the continuous ordinary magisterium, or both.
https://www.olrl.org/misc/Feeneyism.pdf
Can someone make up a quiz we can take to know if we are Feeneyite or not? It might sound silly but I really wouldn't mind it. I can't follow all this. I need something straight forward! To the point.Only need one question: If you profess the below creed, you are a "Feeneyite".
How To Know You're a Feeneyite in 5 Questions or Less
Maybe you're right about the continuous ordinary magisterium, but I'd have to figure out precisely how the continuous ordinary magisterium works first. I mean, this is a major point of contention between Sedes and R + Rs, but I haven't found anything close to a clear answer yet. So I'm not sure how it applies to BOD either/We you are calling the "continuous ordinary magisterium", is known as the Universal Magisterium.
Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.Amen, amen, I say you have no idea what you are talking about. If only poor, stupid Alphonsus had rread Fr. Feeney, he would have understood how wrong he was!
Let’s see...should I follow Christ’s Church or Sean’s? Hmm...
One is either Catholic or not Catholic. There is no such thing as a Feenyite.Agreed: Feeneyite heretics are not Catholic.
Amen, amen, I say you have no idea what you are talking about. If only poor, stupid Alphonsus had rread Fr. Feeney, he would have understood how wrong he was!No need to mock Our Lord's proposition in your frustrated zeal against the necessity of the sacrament. We can be certain if the great saint had read Fr. Feeney, he would have corrected his mistake, he certainly would not have mocked the words of Our Lord.
Agreed: Feeneyite heretics are not Catholic.The great Sean has spoken!
Only need one question: If you profess the below creed, you are a "Feeneyite".
Athanasian Creed (4th Century)
(. . .)
Amen, amen, I say you have no idea what you are talking about. If only poor, stupid Alphonsus had rread Fr. Feeney, he would have understood how wrong he was!Mocking Sacred Scripture doesn't change the fact that the necessity of baptism, and the necessity of water for baptism, are both de fide. As Trent says, the requirement of water MAY NOT be wrested into a metaphor. The statement that there is salvation without water baptism is objectively heretical.
If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.