Author Topic: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans (Read 9126 times)

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #120 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:36:33 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:30:42 PM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #121 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:39:53 PM »

Quote

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".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #122 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:42:57 PM »

Invincible ignorance has nothing to do with BOD, because one cannot desire what one does not know. The invincible ignorance error is the corruption of the belief that "desire" suffices for salvation, and this is what led to V2, and is what Fr Feeney was warning about when he said that we need a distinction on when and how "desire" works.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #123 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:43:00 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 01:24:41 PM

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, this is certainly true. "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball." On the face of it, it's ambiguous. But it does not necessarily mean that I can play baseball if I have either a bat or a ball. It could have been disambiguated inline with an "or else". "I cannot play baseball without a bat or else a ball." In fact, Trent does EXACTLY that when referring to justification through the desire to receive the Sacrament of Confession. But not here. And yet Trent disambiguates immediately afterwards in the case of Baptism.

"one cannot be justified without the laver or the desire for it, since one cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless he is reborn of water AND the Holy Ghost."

laver:water::desire:Holy Ghost ... since Trent spent a couple paragraphs explaining how the Holy Ghost inspires this desire and intention to receive Baptism.

So it would be like saying: "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since you need both a bat and a ball to play baseball." actually means "I can play baseball with either a bat or a ball, since you need both a bat or a ball to play baseball." That would be utter nonsense.

BoDers would have Trent teaching: "one can be justified with either the water or the desire, since Our Lord taught that one cannot be justified unless he receive both water and the desire."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #124 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:45:57 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:36:33 PM

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.

Not really. St. Thomas spoke about the scenario of some ignorant native who had never heard of the faith ... and concluded that if the man were to be properly disposed, God would either give him a direct enlightenment or else send a preacher of the faith to him. That conclusion implies that an enlightenment of faith is necessary for salvation. Why else wold God need to provide such a thing? And that is exactly what Pius IX was teaching, echoing St. Thomas precisely, about invincible ignorance, that such a one would be brought to justification by the work of light and grace.

Stubborn · « **Reply #125 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:46:30 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on August 08, 2019, 01:33:39 PM

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.

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.

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.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #126 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:51:35 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 01:39:53 PM

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.

As far as the Trent thing, I do have a thought that I want to throw out here. I don't know enough Latin to know whether the word is rightly translated "or" or "and." I also recognize, in the light of Ladislaus' comment, that even if the correct translation is literally "or", it is a possible reading that it could mean "and" in a similar way that "you can't play baseball without a bat or a ball" still in context means you need both.

It is of course the case that Baptism of Desire (for catechumens at least) was taught by some theologians both before (St Thomas Aquinas) and after (St Alphonsus) Trent, so at the least, 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.

In other words, to colloquially suggest a translation. "If a man says that faith alone saves, without water baptism or *at least* the desire for water baptism, let him be anathema." Something like that.

And since the intent was to anathemize the Protestant, not either side of the BOD debate, it seems logically like you could take either side of the BOD debate and just say Trent doesn't settle it.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #127 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:52:44 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on August 08, 2019, 01:33:39 PM

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.

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.

Yes. Forlorn *exactly* got my point.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #128 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:55:05 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:30:42 PM

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.)

I'll try to dig up the research for you. This "Rewarder God" theory can be traced squarely to a couple of Jesuits writing around the year 1600.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #129 on:** August 08, 2019, 01:56:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:26:08 PM

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, Jews ...…. must be that one must be ludicrously inconsistent.

Above is one example. They say that ONE totally unclear passage in Trent teaches baptism of desire is a dogma, while they say that ALL of the innumerable CLEAR dogmas on salvation and EENS do not teach clearly, and they deny them all to believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews etc...…. can be saved even if they have no desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

In this thread they go one step further and dump all the clear dogmas for a quote supposedly from St. Alphonsus Ligouri where he is reputed to have said that baptism of desire is defied (if he said that, where is his definition of baptism of desire?). I for one do not believe St. Alphonsus Ligouri said any such thing. So they'll have to come up with a lot more material to convince me otherwise.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri totally refutes the 99% of BODers who quote him to support their belief that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews ...…. can be saved even if they have no desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity:

St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).” (So much for the salvation of Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews and people of all religions!)

St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.) (So much for the salvation of Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews and people of all religions!)

St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”

St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)

O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #130 on:** August 08, 2019, 02:07:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:26:08 PM

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:
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!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #131 on:** August 08, 2019, 02:15:18 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 01:24:41 PM

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.
Adding to this probability is the fact that nobody until the Feeneyite era ever noticed (not even the Office of the Holy Inquisition, or the competent censor), despite the significant doctrinal consequences of his “error.”
Thank goodness the Feeneyites finally corrected one of the finest Latinists of all-time.
Miserable stuff.

Struthio · « **Reply #132 on:** August 08, 2019, 02:19:49 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 08, 2019, 02:15:18 PM

It is very likely that St Alphonsus (who wrote subtle treatises in Latin) could not distinguish between “and” and “or” in that language.

St. Alphonsus does not even refer to the Decree on Justification. His reference is a different decree on another sacrament.

It is possible, if not probable, that he didn't even write that part of that volume himself.

Stubborn · « **Reply #133 on:** August 08, 2019, 02:40:07 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 08, 2019, 02:07:05 PM

Idiotic:
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!

No worries Lad, Sean appreantly believes that his signature has him covered with every post he makes, it says:
-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

Stubborn · « **Reply #134 on:** August 08, 2019, 04:24:03 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:51:35 PM

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.

Everyone who has ever received the sacrament of baptism, or received Extreme Unction, or you name it, did so because God provided it for them. Whoever did not receive the sacrament did not want it. If you have enough faith, you will not have even the slightest doubt that this as indisputable fact, and it will be the same for all who receives it till the end of time. Even if it meant a miracle, God will do it! After all, what is a miracle to God? Why, nothing, nothing at all!

The Doctrine of Divine Providence teaches that: "Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must he taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and God intervenes everywhere". - Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence

Author Topic: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans (Read 9126 times)

ByzCat3000

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Pax Vobis

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Pax Vobis

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Ladislaus

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Ladislaus

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Stubborn

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

ByzCat3000

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

ByzCat3000

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Ladislaus

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Last Tradhican

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

SeanJohnson

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

SeanJohnson

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Struthio

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Stubborn

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans

Stubborn

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans