Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on March 11, 2014, 10:35:37 AM
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
The decision is this:
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved? (a Hindu who is not baptized, has no explicit desire to be baptized, has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, has no explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, a Hindu who lived always believing that he was a Hindu). A belief that is not supported by ANY Father, Doctor, Saint, Council, or catechism prior to the 20th century (and is opposed directly to the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Florence)?
Or
Do I make the decision to restrict my belief to the theories of BOD & BOB of the catechumen, theories which are undeniable supported by some Doctors and Saints.
In other words, are you willing to BELIEVE and teach non-Catholics this (St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and is the most sighted source by BODers):
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.)
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)
-
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved?
Your pope does, so you must also!
-
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved?
Your pope does, so you must also!
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject.
Women should not be teaching men. Please get your husband to come and debate the SUBJECT here.
-
It is obvious that those who deny Baptism of Desire lack Faith, for this reason:
They speak a loud voice about the SACRAMENT of Baptism as if we who adhere to all the teachings of the Church do not know what a Sacrament is.
Review: A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign is for the benefit of man, not God.
St. Augustine teaches us that the water manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace and the Holy Ghost effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both water and Spirit are necessary for this Sacrament of Baptism. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.”…notice the emphasis to those who deny BOD is placed on the outward sign, the water and not the Spirit, the Holy Ghost.
When a mention of the Holy Ghost was made by myself, one of their “comrades in crime” used the word “Pentecostalism” against me.
Bower answer this --->For the salvation of the soul of man, what is first and more important, water or God?
I say God is the only one who can save man, water is necessary for the Sacrament, because man needs this outward sign. I remembering learning this in Catholic school.
Keep in mind that Baptism of Desire is NOT a Sacrament, that is NOT our argument, it is however a means of salvation through the mercy of God, ONLY WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.
Believing in BOD has nothing to do with NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH...They lie! They can not explain how they come to that conclusion and yet ignore their pope who publically states SALVATION FOR ALL, this strange belief of theirs spells H Y P O C R I T E. Not to mention being GUILTY of the UNFORGIVABLE SIN against the Holy Ghost.
-
It is obvious that those who deny Baptism of Desire ...
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject.
Women should not be teaching men. Please get your husband to come and debate the SUBJECT here.
-
It is obvious that those who deny Baptism of Desire ...
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject.
Women should not be teaching men. Please get your husband to come and debate the SUBJECT here.
You do prove bowler, your mother never taught you anything.
-
It is obvious that those who deny Baptism of Desire ...
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject.
Women should not be teaching men. Please get your husband to come and debate the SUBJECT here.
You do prove bowler, your mother never taught you anything.
Especially in regards to literacy and telling the truth.
-
It is obvious that those who deny Baptism of Desire lack Faith, for this reason:
They speak a loud voice about the SACRAMENT of Baptism as if we who adhere to all the teachings of the Church do not know what a Sacrament is.
Review: A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign is for the benefit of man, not God.
St. Augustine teaches us that the water manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace and the Holy Ghost effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both water and Spirit are necessary for this Sacrament of Baptism. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.”…notice the emphasis to those who deny BOD is placed on the outward sign, the water and not the Spirit, the Holy Ghost.
When a mention of the Holy Ghost was made by myself, one of their “comrades in crime” used the word “Pentecostalism” against me.
Bower answer this --->For the salvation of the soul of man, what is first and more important, water or God?
I say God is the only one who can save man, water is necessary for the Sacrament, because man needs this outward sign. I remembering learning this in Catholic school.
Keep in mind that Baptism of Desire is NOT a Sacrament, that is NOT our argument, it is however a means of salvation through the mercy of God, ONLY WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.
Believing in BOD has nothing to do with NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH...They lie! They can not explain how they come to that conclusion and yet ignore their pope who publically states SALVATION FOR ALL, this strange belief of theirs spells H Y P O C R I T E. Not to mention being GUILTY of the UNFORGIVABLE SIN against the Holy Ghost.
Actually Myrna, after reading your post a few times, you sound protestant when you say: "I say God is the only one who can save man, water is necessary for the Sacrament, because man needs this outward sign."
1) Actually, while a sacrament is an outward sign, the reason that water is necessary is because God said it was necessary when he instituted the sacrament - and again He said water was necessary here ".....unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" and Trent echoed Our Lord's teaching.
2) Protestants preach no need for the sacraments (especially confession) as they insist the confession of one's sins "directly to Christ" is all one really needs.
To address your misguided insistence that a BOD has nothing to do with EENS..........
BOD is salvation without any sacrament at all. Now the Church infallibly taught through Trent that "whoever says that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema". BODers wish Trent did not say those exact words, but God the Holy Ghost seeks no one's advice or permission before He proclaims truth before the whole Church.
Holy Mother the Church is the ONLY keeper of the Sacraments. She is the ONLY defender, preserver and ONLY through Her and under Her watchful care are they distributed. It is ONLY within the Church that one can receive the sacraments, outside the Church there ARE NO SACRAMENTS AT ALL.
So you see, those whom you claim are saved without any sacrament at all, are in fact, saved outside the Church.
Ambrose posted (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) a teaching from St. Alphoinsus, which quite explicitly taught that "only heretics say that no sacrament is necessary."
A BOD, as you have aptly pointed out, is no sacrament. So when you say that no sacrament is necessary, according to St. Alphonsus, it is YOU who are the heretic.
As for the pope - - you finally have a pope you can count on to agree with you that a BOD saves, but you reject him as pope. I hope you are no longer waiting for "real pope" who also preaches universal salvation via a BOD.
-
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved?
You might be hard pressed to find this fictitious "Hindu in Tibet".
:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:
The Tibetans are predominantly Buddhists!
-
I can't believe true catholics would actually think there's a chance for the hindu , buddhist,pagan to be saved, to think there are priests who believe this nonsense is disturbing
-
I can't believe true catholics would actually think there's a chance for the hindu, buddhist, pagan to be saved, to think there are priests who believe this nonsense is disturbing.
Then why, gooch, do you think true Catholics subscribe to the following prayer on Good Friday?
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui non mortem peccatorem, sed vitam semper iniquiris: suscipe propitius orationem nostram, et libera eos ab idolorum cultura; et aggrega Ecclesiae tuae sanctae, ad laudem et gloriam nominis tui.
Look it up!
Legem credendi statuit lex orandi.
-
I can't believe true catholics would actually think there's a chance for the hindu , buddhist,pagan to be saved, to think there are priests who believe this nonsense is disturbing
What's really troublesome is that these are so-called self-styled "Traditional" priests.
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
OK, that's tree pages of BODer changing of subject. Let's see how long that goes on.
-
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui non mortem peccatorem, sed vitam semper iniquiris: suscipe propitius orationem nostram, et libera eos ab idolorum cultura; et aggrega Ecclesiae tuae sanctae, ad laudem et gloriam nominis tui.
What does a prayer for the conversion of idolaters have to do with anything under discussion here?
-
It is obvious that those who deny Baptism of Desire lack Faith, for this reason:
They speak a loud voice about the SACRAMENT of Baptism as if we who adhere to all the teachings of the Church do not know what a Sacrament is.
Review: A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign is for the benefit of man, not God.
St. Augustine teaches us that the water manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace and the Holy Ghost effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both water and Spirit are necessary for this Sacrament of Baptism. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.”…notice the emphasis to those who deny BOD is placed on the outward sign, the water and not the Spirit, the Holy Ghost.
When a mention of the Holy Ghost was made by myself, one of their “comrades in crime” used the word “Pentecostalism” against me.
Bower answer this --->For the salvation of the soul of man, what is first and more important, water or God?
I say God is the only one who can save man, water is necessary for the Sacrament, because man needs this outward sign. I remembering learning this in Catholic school.
Keep in mind that Baptism of Desire is NOT a Sacrament, that is NOT our argument, it is however a means of salvation through the mercy of God, ONLY WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.
Believing in BOD has nothing to do with NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH...They lie! They can not explain how they come to that conclusion and yet ignore their pope who publically states SALVATION FOR ALL, this strange belief of theirs spells H Y P O C R I T E. Not to mention being GUILTY of the UNFORGIVABLE SIN against the Holy Ghost.
Actually Myrna, after reading your post a few times, you sound protestant when you say: "I say God is the only one who can save man, water is necessary for the Sacrament, because man needs this outward sign."
1) Actually, while a sacrament is an outward sign, the reason that water is necessary is because God said it was necessary when he instituted the sacrament - and again He said water was necessary here ".....unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" and Trent echoed Our Lord's teaching.
2) Protestants preach no need for the sacraments (especially confession) as they insist the confession of one's sins "directly to Christ" is all one really needs.
To address your misguided insistence that a BOD has nothing to do with EENS..........
BOD is salvation without any sacrament at all. Now the Church infallibly taught through Trent that "whoever says that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema". BODers wish Trent did not say those exact words, but God the Holy Ghost seeks no one's advice or permission before He proclaims truth before the whole Church.
Holy Mother the Church is the ONLY keeper of the Sacraments. She is the ONLY defender, preserver and ONLY through Her and under Her watchful care are they distributed. It is ONLY within the Church that one can receive the sacraments, outside the Church there ARE NO SACRAMENTS AT ALL.
So you see, those whom you claim are saved without any sacrament at all, are in fact, saved outside the Church.
Ambrose posted (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3) a teaching from St. Alphoinsus, which quite explicitly taught that "only heretics say that no sacrament is necessary."
A BOD, as you have aptly pointed out, is no sacrament. So when you say that no sacrament is necessary, according to St. Alphonsus, it is YOU who are the heretic.
As for the pope - - you finally have a pope you can count on to agree with you that a BOD saves, but you reject him as pope. I hope you are no longer waiting for "real pope" who also preaches universal salvation via a BOD.
Stubborn thanks for reading my post, and twice yet, thank you!
Firstly I never said the SACRAMENT of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. My note here was in defense of BOD not the Sacrament. Why is it that when someone who believes differently than the Fr. Fenney camp, must spell out every single thought, if something is left out, you quickly want to say, we deny it. Is that your only defense? If so, you are not getting anywhere.
Where did I say the Sacrament was not necessary?
Since Bower will not answer maybe you will.... If you had to pick only one, would it be the water or the Grace of God that actually saved?
The outward sign of water MUST BE THERE FOR THE SACRAMENT, YES, YES, HOW MANY TIMES DO I have to say, I am not defending the Sacrament because it does not need defending, unless I am posting to Protestants, who do not believe in the Sacraments. I thought I was posting on a Catholic forum, to people who think of themselves as Catholics.
BOD/BOB is not a Sacrament it is the exception to God's rule. Like when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, that was an exception, right!
When John the Baptist was born, NOT CONCEIVED without original sin, that was an exception to the rule, right.
To deny that the Holy Ghost has a part, the bigger part in BOD, is to deny the Holy Ghost. The outward sign of the sacrament is for our benefit, and for the Sacrament.
Funny how mention of the Holy Ghost, I am a guilty of Pentecostalism and now you say Protestant. I bolded my note for you, so you can notice I did acknowledge the water was necessary for the sacrament. Maybe you should read it a third time as not to miss the word NECESSARY.
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
Our Decision, with God's grace we choose to believe as the Church teaches.
DECIDE...Are you bowler with God or against Him, Catholic or not, do you believe or deny BOD, the power of the Holy Ghost, God's grace working within the soul of whom ever He chooses.
We those of us who defend BOD, have made our decision, you are the confused.
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
Our Decision, with God's grace we choose to believe as the Church teaches.
DECIDE...Are you bowler with God or against Him, Catholic or not, do you believe or deny BOD, the power of the Holy Ghost, God's grace working within the soul of whom ever He chooses.
We those of us who defend BOD, have made our decision, you are the confused.
You are correct, Myrna, they must decide to believe the Teaching of the Church, or to follow so many heretics that have come before, Luther, Calvin, etc.
I have made my choice and that is to be a Catholic, not a heretic.
-
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui non mortem peccatorem, sed vitam semper iniquiris: suscipe propitius orationem nostram, et libera eos ab idolorum cultura; et aggrega Ecclesiae tuae sanctae, ad laudem et gloriam nominis tui.
What does a prayer for the conversion of idolaters have to do with anything under discussion here?
Ladislaus
Instead of carping about one part of my post, read the whole of it in context.
-
Four pages and no HONEST response from any BODer, basically all that has been written by BODers so far is typical of people who feel the rebuke on their conscience:
"And in the ѕуηαgσgυє there was a man who had an unclean devil, and he cried out with a loud voice, Saying: Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace, and go out of him. And when the devil had thrown him into the midst, he went out of him, and hurt him not at all. (Luke 4:33-35)
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
The decision is this:
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved? (a Hindu who is not baptized, has no explicit desire to be baptized, has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, has no explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, a Hindu who lived always believing that he was a Hindu). A belief that is not supported by ANY Father, Doctor, Saint, Council, or catechism prior to the 20th century (and is opposed directly to the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Florence)?
Or
Do I make the decision to restrict my belief to the theories of BOD & BOB of the catechumen, theories which are undeniable supported by some Doctors and Saints.
In other words, are you willing to BELIEVE and teach non-Catholics this (St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and is the most sighted source by BODers):
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.)
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)
-
Stubborn thanks for reading my post, and twice yet, thank you!
Firstly I never said the SACRAMENT of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. My note here was in defense of BOD not the Sacrament. Why is it that when someone who believes differently than the Fr. Fenney camp, must spell out every single thought, if something is left out, you quickly want to say, we deny it. Is that your only defense? If so, you are not getting anywhere.
Where did I say the Sacrament was not necessary?
Defending a BOD is defending salvation without the sacrament, is therefore defending the heresy that salvation is attainable outside the Church, is promoting the heresy that no sacrament is necessary for salvation, makes the necessity of the sacrament superfluous and is in direct contradiction of both the words of Our Lord and the infallible teaching of Trent's: "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous.....let him be anathema" As you know, a BOD is not a sacrament.
That's where you said the sacrament was not necessary.
Since Bower will not answer maybe you will.... If you had to pick only one, would it be the water or the Grace of God that actually saved?
The outward sign of water MUST BE THERE FOR THE SACRAMENT, YES, YES, HOW MANY TIMES DO I have to say, I am not defending the Sacrament because it does not need defending, unless I am posting to Protestants, who do not believe in the Sacraments. I thought I was posting on a Catholic forum, to people who think of themselves as Catholics.
BOD/BOB is not a Sacrament it is the exception to God's rule. Like when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, that was an exception, right!
When John the Baptist was born, NOT CONCEIVED without original sin, that was an exception to the rule, right.
There was only one St. John the Martyr Baptist born without Original Sin, the rest of us are bound to the law. You use possibly the greatest saint as an example - why not use our Blessed Mother whom was also singularly blessed with the privilege of being born without Original Sin?
Do you not know the reason these two alone were granted such a special privilege? In case you do not know, all I will tell you is that it certainly had nothing to do with an unforeseen and deadly accident or some implicit intention.
The Church teaches of no exception to the sacrament - this is especially true because She teaches that we are bound to believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation under pain of anathema. You would have us believe She binds us to believe the necessity of the sacraments, and at the same time to them not being a necessity, depending on our particular circuмstances.
As far as you consistently saying: "The outward sign of water MUST BE THERE FOR THE SACRAMENT, YES, YES, HOW MANY TIMES DO I have to say..." - I say that you sound like a protestant because they too claim the water is "only a sign" or symbol. The water is an outward sign for sure, but actual reason the sacrament is a necessity is because it gives grace.
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
Our Decision, with God's grace we choose to believe as the Church teaches.
DECIDE...Are you bowler with God or against Him, Catholic or not, do you believe or deny BOD, the power of the Holy Ghost, God's grace working within the soul of whom ever He chooses.
We those of us who defend BOD, have made our decision, you are the confused.
You are correct, Myrna, they must decide to believe the Teaching of the Church, or to follow so many heretics that have come before, Luther, Calvin, etc.
I have made my choice and that is to be a Catholic, not a heretic.
Your choice is to be Catholic? Then when will you or any BODer do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
The challenge (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is past the eleventh week already and all you prove by ignoring it is that you deny that any sacrament is necessary - and you call *that* Catholic? God help us!
-
- why not use our Blessed Mother whom was also singularly blessed with the privilege of being born without Original Sin?
Mention of the Blessed Mother was not in my post because she is not an exception, but the rule.
She is God’s MASTERPIECE, never touched with Original sin, as was St. John the Baptist. There are no words that truly can express how perfect God created her. She was the new Eve, He created her for us, that God can become one of us.
Who can deny the dignity of the Virgin Mary — chosen to be the Mother of Jesus Christ? The Angel Gabriel, who was sent by God Himself, honored and praised her.
Furthermore, when the Virgin Mary visited her cousin, St. Elizabeth
“was filled with the Holy Ghost, and she cried out with a loud voice and said: ‘Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?’”
Then during this same visitation, the Virgin Mary responded to her cousin’s praise of her by the prayer so full of humility and of praise to God:
“My soul doth magnify the Lord... because He hath regarded the humility of His handmaid;for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done great things to me.”
You see Stubborn, the Blessed Mother, our Heavenly Mother can not be compared to St. John the Baptist.
I say that you sound like a protestant because they too claim the water is "only a sign" or symbol. The water is an outward sign for sure, but actual reason the sacrament is a necessity is because it gives grace.
The Church teaches us that the water during the SACRAMENT of Baptism is the outward sign of the Sacrament. So you deny that teaching also, do you. [bolded words are an example of what you do to our posts)
The word that you inserted "ONLY'' or symbol was never in my post, just another example of how the deniers of BOD, insert, twist what they read, and do not like, they tend to change to their own erroneous agenda.
-
6 pages of BODer subject changing, and not an honest response.
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
The decision is this:
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved? (a Hindu who is not baptized, has no explicit desire to be baptized, has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, has no explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, a Hindu who lived always believing that he was a Hindu). A belief that is not supported by ANY Father, Doctor, Saint, Council, or catechism prior to the 20th century (and is opposed directly to the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Florence)?
Or
Do I make the decision to restrict my belief to the theories of BOD & BOB of the catechumen, theories which are undeniable supported by some Doctors and Saints.
In other words, are you willing to BELIEVE and teach non-Catholics this (St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and is the most sighted source by BODers):
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.)
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)
-
- why not use our Blessed Mother whom was also singularly blessed with the privilege of being born without Original Sin?
Mention of the Blessed Mother was not in my post because she is not an exception, but the rule.
She is God’s MASTERPIECE, never touched with Original sin, as was St. John the Baptist...........
Wonderful. So you understand that only Our Blessed Mother was necessarily conceived without Original Sin and why.
Presumably you also understand the reason why St. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin as well. As I said before, them being born without Original Sin certainly had nothing to do with a BOD due to the ever illusive "unforeseen deadly accident" or their own intention.
I say that you sound like a protestant because they too claim the water is "only a sign" or symbol. The water is an outward sign for sure, but actual reason the sacrament is a necessity is because it gives grace.
The Church teaches us that the water during the SACRAMENT of Baptism is the outward sign of the Sacrament. So you deny that teaching also, do you. [bolded words are an example of what you do to our posts)
The word that you inserted "ONLY'' or symbol was never in my post, just another example of how the deniers of BOD, insert, twist what they read, and do not like, they tend to change to their own erroneous agenda.
Whatever.
1) As you posted below, you admit knowing that a BOD it is not a sacrament and does not replace the sacrament. (Ambrose, a vehement defender of a BOD and despiser of the sacraments here on CI disagrees with you - he states that a BOD is indeed "a substitute for the sacrament." - for whatever that's worth).
post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30237&min=215&num=5)
You hear or in this case you read what you want to see and completely miss the fact that, BOD does not replace, Baptism of water, the Sacrament.
2) You also know Trent's infallible teaching that says that: "If anyone saith that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary unto salvation but superfluous...let him be anathema." So you admit that you know that salvation is impossible unless one first receives the sacrament.
3) Since you know that the sacrament is a necessity unto salvation, and you also know that a BOD is not a sacrament, then you really should admit that the truth is, that a person who dies, never having received any sacrament is not saved because he did not receive that which is necessary unto salvation, namely, the sacrament.
4) Per Trent, those who say that someone can be saved without the sacrament is anathema. Per St. Alphonsus, those who say that no sacrament is necessary is a heretic.
5) Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
Our Decision, with God's grace we choose to believe as the Church teaches.
DECIDE...Are you bowler with God or against Him, Catholic or not, do you believe or deny BOD, the power of the Holy Ghost, God's grace working within the soul of whom ever He chooses.
We those of us who defend BOD, have made our decision, you are the confused.
You are correct, Myrna, they must decide to believe the Teaching of the Church, or to follow so many heretics that have come before, Luther, Calvin, etc.
I have made my choice and that is to be a Catholic, not a heretic.
Your choice is to be Catholic? Then when will you or any BODer do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
The challenge (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is past the eleventh week already and all you prove by ignoring it is that you deny that any sacrament is necessary - and you call *that* Catholic? God help us!
Defending the sacraments means defending them from Protestant spirited private interpretation. Maybe someday, by the Grace of God you will see that you and your like minded Baptism of Desire Deniers are attacking the teaching of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Baptism.
I just recently posted a magnificent four volume dogmatic theology set on the Sacraments in the CI library. I would strongly urge you to read and learn from the masters that the Church has commissioned to explain the Faith.
The Sacraments A Dogmatic Treatise Vol. 1-4, Msgr. Joseph Pohle, 1915: Found HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Sacraments-A-Dogmatic-Treatise-Vol-1-4-1915)
-
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
Our Decision, with God's grace we choose to believe as the Church teaches.
DECIDE...Are you bowler with God or against Him, Catholic or not, do you believe or deny BOD, the power of the Holy Ghost, God's grace working within the soul of whom ever He chooses.
We those of us who defend BOD, have made our decision, you are the confused.
You are correct, Myrna, they must decide to believe the Teaching of the Church, or to follow so many heretics that have come before, Luther, Calvin, etc.
I have made my choice and that is to be a Catholic, not a heretic.
Your choice is to be Catholic? Then when will you or any BODer do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
The challenge (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) is past the eleventh week already and all you prove by ignoring it is that you deny that any sacrament is necessary - and you call *that* Catholic? God help us!
Defending the sacraments means defending them from Protestant spirited private interpretation. Maybe someday, by the Grace of God you will see that you and your like minded Baptism of Desire Deniers are attacking the teaching of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Baptism.
The only private interpretation being done is by those who must [mis]interpret
literal infallible teaching in order to come up with such a thing as a BOD.
BODers interpret the words of Our Lord to mean something they do not say. BODers must interpret Trent's teaching to contradict what it teaches. BODers must reject V1's teaching, which declare that infallible teachings mean what they say and they are not to be interpreted and explained in the name of a better and more profound understanding than what has been once declared.
I just recently posted a magnificent four volume dogmatic theology set on the Sacraments in the CI library. I would strongly urge you to read and learn from the masters that the Church has commissioned to explain the Faith.
The Sacraments A Dogmatic Treatise Vol. 1-4, Msgr. Joseph Pohle, 1915: Found HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Sacraments-A-Dogmatic-Treatise-Vol-1-4-1915)
I have strongly urged you to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation for over 11 weeks now - it is quite obvious you cannot get yourself to do such a strictly Catholic thing, so when will you admit that because you despise the necessity of the sacraments that to do any such thing is as much an absolute impossibility for you as it would be for me to start a thread defending a BOD?
-
Whatever.
1) As you posted below, you admit knowing that a BOD it is not a sacrament and does not replace the sacrament. (Ambrose, a vehement defender of a BOD and despiser of the sacraments here on CI disagrees with you - he states that a BOD is indeed "a substitute for the sacrament." - for whatever that's worth).
2) You also know Trent's infallible teaching that says that: "If anyone saith that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary unto salvation but superfluous...let him be anathema." So you admit that you know that salvation is impossible unless one first receives the sacrament.
3) Since you know that the sacrament is a necessity unto salvation, and you also know that a BOD is not a sacrament, then you really should admit that the truth is, that a person who dies, never having received any sacrament is not saved because he did not receive that which is necessary unto salvation, namely, the sacrament.
4) Per Trent, those who say that someone can be saved without the sacrament is anathema. Per St. Alphonsus, those who say that no sacrament is necessary is a heretic.
5) Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
When someone points out to you the truth, you say ... "whatever".
Then you criticize Ambrose for his use of the term "substitute", which means "something to take the place of" which is what BOD means, IN THE SENSE that it is an avenue to save ones soul. Not that it is another Sacrament, for it is not a Sacrament.
Personally I like to think of BOD as the exception.
Also, with God's grace, a Catholic could never accept the fact that God would send someone to Hell just because of circuмstances as: A person willing to be Baptized, prepares to be Baptized, embraces the Faith and wants to do the will of God, but dies before it can be obtained.
You and your ilk like to pretend that to believe in Church teaching such as BOD/BOB is to deny another teaching, as No Salvation Outside the Church, and that is a LIE, against another person, who tells you that is not what they believe.
Therefore that makes you guilty against the 8th Commandment of God. The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.
Your kind is also guilty of judging the soul of another, which is also a SIN.
SCOFFers here flirt with the unforgivable sin of refusing the power of the Holy Ghost working in the soul of mankind.
You should really "study up" on your catechism, instead of repeating what your comrades say, over and over again. Not only do they TROLL here, beg for answers to their questions, yet refuse to hear the answer when given.
It is easy to see who you represent since notes here from SCOFFers only intention is to instigate another, and that brings you joy.
Since you like to call us BODers, I will refer to you as THE SCOFFers.
-
7 pages of BODer (and non-BODers provoking them to continue) subject changing, Please do not assist the BODers in derailing this thread with their subject changes! Please do not give women a platform to teach men on this thread!
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
The decision is this:
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved? (a Hindu who is not baptized, has no explicit desire to be baptized, has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, has no explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, a Hindu who lived always believing that he was a Hindu). A belief that is not supported by ANY Father, Doctor, Saint, Council, or catechism prior to the 20th century (and is opposed directly to the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Florence)?
Or
Do I make the decision to restrict my belief to the theories of BOD & BOB of the catechumen, theories which are undeniable supported by some Doctors and Saints.
In other words, are you willing to BELIEVE and teach non-Catholics this (St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and is the most sighted source by BODers):
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.)
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)
-
A person who has the conviction of knowing that they possess the truth, would never be totally hesitant and on guard the way these BODers on CI are. Not even they believe what they say.
-
Defending the sacraments means defending them from Protestant spirited private interpretation.
Uhm ...
no.
-
Whatever.
1) As you posted below, you admit knowing that a BOD it is not a sacrament and does not replace the sacrament. (Ambrose, a vehement defender of a BOD and despiser of the sacraments here on CI disagrees with you - he states that a BOD is indeed "a substitute for the sacrament." - for whatever that's worth).
2) You also know Trent's infallible teaching that says that: "If anyone saith that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary unto salvation but superfluous...let him be anathema." So you admit that you know that salvation is impossible unless one first receives the sacrament.
3) Since you know that the sacrament is a necessity unto salvation, and you also know that a BOD is not a sacrament, then you really should admit that the truth is, that a person who dies, never having received any sacrament is not saved because he did not receive that which is necessary unto salvation, namely, the sacrament.
4) Per Trent, those who say that someone can be saved without the sacrament is anathema. Per St. Alphonsus, those who say that no sacrament is necessary is a heretic.
5) Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
When someone points out to you the truth, you say ... "whatever".
Because your comment was circular and makes no sense, so I said, "whatever".
Now, will you answer my clear question below with a clear answer?
5) Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
Then you criticize Ambrose for his use of the term "substitute", which means "something to take the place of" which is what BOD means, IN THE SENSE that it is an avenue to save ones soul. Not that it is another Sacrament, for it is not a Sacrament.
I did not criticize him for using the term "substitute" - I said it conflicts with your definition of a BOD.
Personally I like to think of BOD as the exception.
Well we know that! All BODers think that it is the exception - you're the first one I've seen admit it.
We are not permitted to make exceptions to infallible teaching because when we do, we change the meaning of infallible teachings - we are not permitted to do that! When you make exceptions to defined teachings, the next thing you know, you'll be rewarding salvation without the sacraments.
BODers are the ones who give new meanings to de fide teachings through their misinterpretations and exceptions.
The BODers are the ones who give new meaning to the words of Our Lord "unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." The BODers claim the words from the mouth of God do not mean what they say - they then proceed to write a 3 inch thick book explaining what those words REALLY mean. By the time the BODer is done mis interpreting, explaining away and adding every exception they can muster, the words of Our Lord may as well have never been uttered.
Since you like to call us BODers, I will refer to you as THE SCOFFers.
I have been calling a BODers, "Sacrament Despisers" since BODers believe no sacrament is necessary unto salvation - - - according to Trent's catechism, "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it." And BODers certainly fit that description in that they preach salvation without the sacraments.
I prefer that you refer to us truthfully - call us, "the Defenders of the Holy Sacraments."
Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
-
7 pages of BODer (and non-BODers provoking them to continue) subject changing, Please do not assist the BODers in derailing this thread with their subject changes! Please do not give women a platform to teach men on this thread!
BODers here on CI when faced with the contradictions in their BOD edifice, do what millions of people have done every since when the true religion demanded of them a reformation in their conduct: they change the subject. They are willing to make BOD a matter of discussion, but they do not want to make it a matter of decision.
The decision is this:
Do I want to continue to believe that a "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved? (a Hindu who is not baptized, has no explicit desire to be baptized, has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, has no explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, a Hindu who lived always believing that he was a Hindu). A belief that is not supported by ANY Father, Doctor, Saint, Council, or catechism prior to the 20th century (and is opposed directly to the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Florence)?
Or
Do I make the decision to restrict my belief to the theories of BOD & BOB of the catechumen, theories which are undeniable supported by some Doctors and Saints.
In other words, are you willing to BELIEVE and teach non-Catholics this (St. Alphonsus Ligouri believed in BOD & BOB of the catechumen, and is the most sighted source by BODers):
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.)
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)
-
XXXXXXXX
Please do not assist the BODers in derailing this thread with their subject changes! Please do not give women a platform to teach men on this thread!
-
Defending the sacraments means defending them from Protestant spirited private interpretation.
Uhm ...
no.
Yes. You and your pals are attacking the teaching of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Baptism. You are all using Protestant tactics of private interpretation. None of you have any authority in the Church, but like to pretend you are equivalent to the Pope.
-
Now, will you answer my clear question below with a clear answer?
5) Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
No that is what your Francis teaches, Catholics believe that if a person dies in the State of Grace and was planning to have the Sacrament of Baptism, ASAP, but upon arriving in their eternity before the Sacrament was administered will save their soul, via BOD.
Again, why not spend your energy and send your pope some of your notes, you post here, or are you afraid you will get excommunicated from the heretic. How you can ever believe that a Vicar of Christ can be a pope from truth and error is beyond me.
We are not permitted to make exceptions to infallible teaching because when we do, we change the meaning of infallible teachings - we are not permitted to do that! When you make exceptions to defined teachings, the next thing you know, you'll be rewarding salvation without the sacraments.
We don't make exceptions, God does!
-
Now, will you answer my clear question below with a clear answer?
5) Do YOU say that a person who dies and has never received the sacrament in their whole life, is saved anyway via a BOD?
No that is what your Francis teaches, Catholics believe that if a person dies in the State of Grace and was planning to have the Sacrament of Baptism, ASAP, but upon arriving in their eternity before the Sacrament was administered will save their soul, via BOD.
Again, why not spend your energy and send your pope some of your notes, you post here, or are you afraid you will get excommunicated from the heretic. How you can ever believe that a Vicar of Christ can be a pope from truth and error is beyond me.
We are not permitted to make exceptions to infallible teaching because when we do, we change the meaning of infallible teachings - we are not permitted to do that! When you make exceptions to defined teachings, the next thing you know, you'll be rewarding salvation without the sacraments.
We don't make exceptions, God does!
Yep, you sound just like every Protestant I ever heard.
Well, the challenge to all BODers to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation remains unanswered after about 3 months - who will be the first honest BODer to step up to the plate and admit it is impossible for one who preaches and believes in a BOD, to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
The challenge to all BODers:
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that you, SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
-
Defending the sacraments means defending them from Protestant spirited private interpretation.
Uhm ...
no.
Yes. You and your pals are attacking the teaching of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Baptism. You are all using Protestant tactics of private interpretation. None of you have any authority in the Church, but like to pretend you are equivalent to the Pope.
:facepalm:
You are the one who gives new meaning to the clear teaching of Trent and the words of Our Lord in John 3:5 - and you say we use private interpretation?
Ambrose, do you know that the sacrament of Extreme Unction, if received with proper disposition completely eradicates all the sins of its recipient's whole life no matter how terrible, and that the sacrament takes away all the punishments due to them? That's right - no purgatory! Straight to heaven! Deo Gratias He left us with such a means for salvation! But that's not all - - if you end up back on your feet after having received that sacrament, no matter how old you are, you start with a clean slate - as if you've just been sacramentaly baptized! THIS is what God does, THIS is how God provides, THIS is how God chooses to save whomever He wants.
But those who say that there is salvation via a BOD, maintain, in effect, that this Sacrament might as well not have been instituted, for it is really of no great importance. Whatever effects flow from it, almighty God produces in the souls of non-Catholic "saints" anyhow. And He does this directly without the mediation of the Church, without the power of the priesthood, and without the Oil of the Sick, wherein is the power of the Holy Spirit.
Question to ask yourself: Will you have a priest in your last hour to give you the sacrament of Extreme Unction? Why would you since you've made it known that you believe that salvation is possible without any sacrament at all. When you believe and preach that contrition / a sincere desire suffices - what should you expect in your last hour? A priest? For what? Do you honestly expect that God will provide you a priest for your last sacrament after you've spent your time on earth preaching against the necessity of any sacrament at all? Certainly since you preach that the sacrament of Baptism is unnecessary, you'll have no need for the sacrament of Extreme Unction - make sense to you yet?
Just do your best to have an implicit desire for the sacrament of Extreme Unction and for your sake, I hope that it works! - - - I sincerely hope you make it that way.
-
Yes, this claim the WE are "interpreting" is incredibly obnoxious.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
No, we take the Church teaching that there's "absolutely no salvation outside the Church" at face value. We take Church teaching that "pagans, heretics, infidels, schismatics, etc. will all go to hell unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before they die" at face value.
BoDers are the ones who INTERPRET the dogma that there's No Salvation Outisde the Church, applying one distinction and explanation after another (rambling on for paragraphs) so that they now have the audacity to assert the EENS means the opposite of EENS and that if I take the EENS dogmatic definitions and accept them with simple faith as meaning what they say and saying what they mean, then I am actually a heretic.
BoDers are the ones who INTERPRET Our Lord's words that no one can be saved unless they be born again of "water AND the Holy Spirit" to mean "water OR ELSE JUST the Holy Spirit". When the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus, taught us that both water AND the Holy Spirit are required, I'll take His word for it, not yours, Ambrose. In fact, Our Lord mentioned water FIRST, almost as if anticipating this modern heresy.
Again, this turning of dogma into heresy and heresy into dogma is nothing short of a sin against the Holy Spirit.
-
It is not necessary to start a new thread, there are already too many thread on this forum that are started by the SCOFFers. One can defend on them if they care too do so.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they die in a state of grace and righteousness they will go to Heaven.
So the Fathers of Trent were very careful to mention the Baptism of Desire.
Pope Saint Pius V scrutinized the Catechism of the Council of Trent, before it was approved.
The quote about Baptism is from the most accurate translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy. It is still available today.
You can also read the Catechism of the Council of Trent here:
http://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n0/mode/2up
In this edition, the relevant quote is p.124-125. Click the buttons at the foot of the screen to turn the pages.
The Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Catholic Church.
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc.
(Most of the following quotes are taken from the excellent CMRI website):
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT said:
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.”
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT said:
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“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 of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI said:
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“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 Pre sbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS TRUE. IT IS CATHOLIC TEACHING.
FEENEY WAS AN EXCOMMUNICATED HERETIC.
I believe in the Baptism of Desire because Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, etc. all believed in it.
The Baptism of Desire is taught by the Council of Trent, and also by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The Baptism of Desire is a teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they die in a state of grace and righteousness they will go to Heaven.
So the Fathers of Trent were very careful to mention the Baptism of Desire.
Pope Saint Pius V scrutinized the Catechism of the Council of Trent, before it was approved.
The quote about Baptism is from the most accurate translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy. It is still available today.
You can also read the Catechism of the Council of Trent here:
http://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft#page/n0/mode/2up
In this edition, the relevant quote is p.124-125. Click the buttons at the foot of the screen to turn the pages.
The Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Catholic Church.
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc.
(Most of the following quotes are taken from the excellent CMRI website):
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT said:
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.”
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT said:
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“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 of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI said:
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“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 Pre sbytero Non Baptizato and 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.”
A.D. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW said:
On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”
POPE INNOCENT III said:
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
POPE ST. PIUS V said:
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, A.D. 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions[b/] of Michael du Bay:
• Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
• That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
• A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
ST. AMBROSE said:
I hear you express grief because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].
ST. AUGUSTINE said:
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS said:
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”
St. Robert, Doctor of the Church said:
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
POPE PIUS IX in Singulari Quadam, A.D. 1854 said:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [ 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [ Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
Quote:
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (A.D. 1863):
“...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
POPE PIUS XII (A.D. 1939-A.D. 1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, A.D. 1943) said:
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
From http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul10rea.htm:
Letter from the Holy See to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, A.D. 1949
[Given on August 8, A.D. 1949 explaining the true sense of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.]
Quote:
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Massachusetts,
the 4th day of September, 1952
Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
To: Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE, From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, A.D. 1949. said:
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance .
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, Mystici Corporis - On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singulari quadam...also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore....
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children”.
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical "From the Housetops", fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such...
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).
….
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “imprimatur,“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Assessor. Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
Pius XII Confirmed the Decree of Excommunication of the Jesuit Leonard Feeney, February 13, 1953
Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.
The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.
THE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION OF FEENEY WAS CONFIRMED BY POPE PIUS XII:
Quote:
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, ... the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
I do not know of any Feeneyite traditional Catholic priests anywhere on earth.
Fr. Feeney was possibly the only known validly ordained priest to support the Feeneyite heresy, and he was excommunicated by the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII.
Most Feeneyites are not Sedes. Sedes respect true Popes. Sedes listen to the Church.
Most Feeneyites are the recognize-and-reject type. They reject modern heretics that they claim are “popes”. They also reject their very recent leader, Fellay. They also reject what Pope Saint Pius V, Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, etc. all teach concerning the truth of the Baptism of Desire. Thus they increasingly rely on themselves, with all the pride of Luther.
A good Catholic is not always defying those whom he believes are put over him by God.
If these Feeneyites really believe that Francis is “pope”, why do they reject his teachings with all the false zeal with which they reject the Church’s teaching on the Baptism of Desire?
These recognize-and-reject Feenyites pretend that a Catholic can reject the decrees of the Popes. That is why they also reject the teachings of the Catholic Church on other matters, such as the Baptism of Desire.
Pope Saint Pius V, Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, etc. all believed in the Baptism of Desire.
This Catholic teaching has been denied by Feeney, who was excommunicated under Pope Pius XII and by a handful of internet heretics.
Stay Catholic. Do not incur excommunication because of heresy. The Baptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
POPE PIUS XII (A.D. 1939-A.D. 1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, A.D. 1943) said:
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
THE ABOVE QUOTE IS FROM A DOGMATIC LETTER OF POPE PIUS XII:
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE, From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, A.D. 1949. said:
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, Mystici Corporis - On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singulari quadam...also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore....
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children”.
Pope Pius XII's letter is a dogmatic letter, according to his Holy Office.
The Baptism of Desire is de fide.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Holy Office said:
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, Mystici Corporis - On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”
So the Holy Office states that Mystici Corporis is a dogmatic letter of Pope Pius XII.
In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII said:
...are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire...
This is a dogmatic letter of Pope Pius XII.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE THEOLOGIANS TEACH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE:
POPE PIUS XII (A.D. 1939-A.D. 1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, A.D. 1943) said:
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.
FR. A. TANQUERY said:
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, A.D. 1949 said:
• “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, A.D. 1953:
Quote:
• “Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), A.D. 1931
Quote:
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied.
FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, A.D. 1921
Quote:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, A.D 1948:
Quote:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, A.D. 1926:
Quote:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, A.D. 1902
Quote:
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
-
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy.
Dear Myrna,
Without detracting from all your efforts posted just above, as a side issue, I would have to disagree with your evaluation of Dr Jeremiah Donovan’s 1829 English translation of the Roman Catechism (aka: the Catechism of the Council of Trent). In the small part of it that I studied against the Latin original, some time ago, I was very surprised by his shortcomings as a translator. It seemed to me as if he had tried to make up for them by ...
... kissing the Blarney Stone! :mad:
And I am not alone in this view.
At the time that the said translation was published, Dr Donovan was Professor of Rhetoric at Maynooth College – seemingly a prestigious appointment. But in 1832, the translation was denounced to the Archbishop of Dublin by Fr Mark O’Keeffe, Archdeacon of the Diocese of Ferns. How far this matter was taken, is not clear, but the fact is, in 1834, Dr Donovan resigned his position at the college and went to Rome. There, it appears, he won the sympathy (and possibly the patronage) of Cardinal Fransoni, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith, for he then produced the completely fresh translation, which came out in 1837 with a dedication to the Cardinal.
In this second translation, Dr Donovan adopted the section headings which were first proposed by a French publisher in 1588, and which later received the tacit approval of the Holy See. But a colossal blunder that I found in his translation for one of the headings, did nothing to reassure me about Dr Donovan’s competence.
Buckley, an Anglican who also produced an English translation of the Roman Catechism, described this second translation as “abounding in manifest inaccuracies”. And then there were the Dominicans, Frs McHugh and Callan, who produced there own translation in 1923, and gave their verdict on the Donovan translation as “more paraphrase than translation, and singularly devoid of accuracy”!
In the absence of a better alternative, I would certainly give preference to the McHugh/Callan translation.
-
The most accurate translation is the A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation. Fr. Donovan translated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and then improved on his own translation. The A.D. 1829 Fr. Donovan translation is the one to buy. Every Catholic should have a copy.
Dear Myrna,
Without detracting from all your efforts posted just above, as a side issue, I would have to disagree with your evaluation of Dr Jeremiah Donovan’s 1829 English translation of the Roman Catechism (aka: the Catechism of the Council of Trent). In the small part of it that I studied against the Latin original, some time ago, I was very surprised by his shortcomings as a translator. It seemed to me as if he had tried to make up for them by ...
... kissing the Blarney Stone! :mad:
And I am not alone in this view.
At the time that the said translation was published, Dr Donovan was Professor of Rhetoric at Maynooth College – seemingly a prestigious appointment. But in 1832, the translation was denounced to the Archbishop of Dublin by Fr Mark O’Keeffe, Archdeacon of the Diocese of Ferns. How far this matter was taken, is not clear, but the fact is, in 1834, Dr Donovan resigned his position at the college and went to Rome. There, it appears, he won the sympathy (and possibly the patronage) of Cardinal Fransoni, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith, for he then produced the completely fresh translation, which came out in 1837 with a dedication to the Cardinal.
In this second translation, Dr Donovan adopted the section headings which were first proposed by a French publisher in 1588, and which later received the tacit approval of the Holy See. But a colossal blunder that I found in his translation for one of the headings, did nothing to reassure me about Dr Donovan’s competence.
Buckley, an Anglican who also produced an English translation of the Roman Catechism, described this second translation as “abounding in manifest inaccuracies”. And then there were the Dominicans, Frs McHugh and Callan, who produced there own translation in 1923, and gave their verdict on the Donovan translation as “more paraphrase than translation, and singularly devoid of accuracy”!
In the absence of a better alternative, I would certainly give preference to the McHugh/Callan translation.
Having not researched into Donovan's work as you have, I yield to your opinion of the matter, meantime I myself will research. Confess this was a copy and paste in defense of Baptism of Desire.
Thank you for your insight and post here. Hoping it will encourage readers to do some research on their own, myself included.
-
It is not necessary to start a new thread, there are already too many thread on this forum that are started by the SCOFFers. One can defend on them if they care too do so.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Sacrament of Baptism said:
…should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Of COURSE it is not necessary for you to defend the necessity of the sacraments - -- because YOU do not believe they are necessary.
Another misinterpretation, do BODers EVER read what is written as it is written?
The error is yours here because you are *not* reading what is written.
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was hit by a car.
When reading what is written, the catechism teaches that their contrition, and desire will *avail* them to *grace and righteousness* - IOW, it will put them "in the way" of grace - or to put it another way, before they can be baptized, the person *must* be in the way of grace via the proper intention - i.e. they must "desire" to be baptized prior to actually receiving the sacrament.
You need to look up the word AVAIL in the dictionary - not that it'll make any difference, just so you know what it means.
What you did, was take what the catechism teaches regarding the Desire for Baptism, and changed it into teaching a Baptism of Desire.
I do not know of any Feeneyite traditional Catholic priests anywhere on earth.
Fr. Feeney was possibly the only known validly ordained priest to support the Feeneyite heresy, and he was excommunicated by the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII.
Most Feeneyites are not Sedes. Sedes respect true Popes. Sedes listen to the Church.
Well, Fr. Feeney never retracted his condemnation of a BOD - he died professing the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for salvation - - - and by the way, He had the sacrament of Extreme Unction before he died. Do you know what that means? Do you BODers even have a clue what that means?
The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is something BODers have no use for - - but at least we know with certainty that Fr. Feeney made it to heaven, and not thanks to some implicit desire to do good, he made it because he received that which was useful and necessary unto salvation - and that for which he was known for defending - the sacraments!
-
The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is something BODers have no use for - - but at least we know with certainty that Fr. Feeney made it to heaven, and not thanks to some implicit desire to do good, he made it because he received that which was useful and necessary unto salvation - and that for which he was known for defending - the sacraments!
You are a BIG FAT LIAR, to say such a thing. My husband who passed away exactly 16 months ago also had the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, a grace I thank God for every day.
I am happy Fr. Feeney is in Heaven, I would not want my worst enemy to lose their soul, something all of you seem to glory in, the lost of souls.
-
The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is something BODers have no use for - - but at least we know with certainty that Fr. Feeney made it to heaven, and not thanks to some implicit desire to do good, he made it because he received that which was useful and necessary unto salvation - and that for which he was known for defending - the sacraments!
You are a BIG FAT LIAR, to say such a thing. My husband who passed away exactly 16 months ago also had the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, a grace I thank God for every day.
I am happy Fr. Feeney is in Heaven, I would not want my worst enemy to lose their soul, something all of you seem to glory in, the lost of souls.
Yes, I recall you saying that he received the Last Rites before - I have prayed to your husband for you to wake up.
You call me a liar yet you have dodged the question same as all BODers dodge it.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ....let him be anathema.
A BOD is not a sacrament - Do you believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation?
If you believe a BOD can save anyone, then you do not believe the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation - that's the way it is because that's the way you make it - and that includes you believe the sacrament of Extreme Unction is unnecessary since no other sacrament can be received unless one is first sacramentally baptized. So therefore it is YOU who are the liar if you say that the sacraments are necessary (which you have not said) and say that salvation is attainable without them via a BOD (which you have preached).
-
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
Neither do the stubs in my cheque book. So what?
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
Of course the catechism does not reward salvation. That is God's prerogative!
And it is only obtained, if at all, after the Judgement.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.
So what is meant by “satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam”?
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was hit by a car.
Two can play this silly game. There were no cars around when the Catechism was written!
-------------------------
OK. Now let's get serious.
Let’s recap what the Catechism actually says at this point:
Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint.
Which translates to:
Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness, if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
ad gratiam et iustitiam = for the grace and the righteousness
ie: for justification; that is to say, the end for which the sacrament of Baptism is the ordinary means.
The Catechism asserts that, for adults, the reception of the sacrament of Baptism does not have the same urgency as it does for infants.
This is because the candidate’s right disposition (use of reason, repentance, and intention to be baptised) would be sufficient to secure for him the grace of justification, in the event of his intention being permanently impeded.
Comparison of the two cases (infant baptism v. adult baptism) indicates that the reassurance inherent in the text, would take effect in the event of the candidate dying before receiving the sacrament.
-
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
Neither do the stubs in my cheque book. So what?
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
Of course the catechism does not reward salvation. That is God's prerogative!
And it is only obtained, if at all, after the Judgement.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.
So what is meant by “satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam”?
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was hit by a car.
Two can play this silly game. There were no cars around when the Catechism was written!
-------------------------
OK. Now let's get serious.
Let’s recap what the Catechism actually says at this point:
Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint.
Which translates to:
Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness, if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
ad gratiam et iustitiam = for the grace and the righteousness
ie: for justification; that is to say, the end for which the sacrament of Baptism is the ordinary means.
The Catechism asserts that, for adults, the reception of the sacrament of Baptism does not have the same urgency as it does for infants.
This is because the candidate’s right disposition (use of reason, repentance, and intention to be baptised) would be sufficient to secure for him the grace of justification, in the event of his intention being permanently impeded.
Comparison of the two cases (infant baptism v. adult baptism) indicates that the reassurance inherent in the text, would take effect in the event of the candidate dying before receiving the sacrament.
Carry on, and good luck, Sunbeam!
-
Let’s recap what the Catechism actually says at this point:
To the BODer the Catechism of Trent's obscure line of "avail them to grace and righteousness" (the only line in the entire catechism that they could quote) means that BOD is "a dogma", and should be read as such. On the other hand, with regard to BOD, the rest of the catechism should not be understood as it is clearly written!
Moreover, the BODers teach that, ALL the clear dogmas on EENS and the sacraments of baptism SHOULD NOT be understood as they are written. (see "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written", http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written )
To the Heroin BODer, EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree below does not mean what they say. (remember that a Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic.)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[/color]
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Council of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Chapter VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;
(Just in case anyone wants to refute what that quote above means, I quote below the same thing said at the Council of Florence:)
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
---------------------------------
The following quotations from many Popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. These teachings of the Popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
[
-
Carry on, and good luck, Sunbeam!
:rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:
-
Carry on, and good luck, Sunbeam!
:rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:
She clearly hates the dogma.
Saint Patrick, pray for us.
-
OK. Now let's get serious.
Let’s recap what the Catechism actually says at this point:
Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint.
Which translates to:
Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness, if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
ad gratiam et iustitiam = for the grace and the righteousness
ie: for justification; that is to say, the end for which the sacrament of Baptism is the ordinary means.
The Catechism asserts that, for adults, the reception of the sacrament of Baptism does not have the same urgency as it does for infants.
This is because the candidate’s right disposition (use of reason, repentance, and intention to be baptised) would be sufficient to secure for him the grace of justification, in the event of his intention being permanently impeded.
You must first accept the fact that the catechism is teaching all about the necessity of receiving the sacrament worthily, it is not teaching all about the desire for receiving it as being in any way equal to reception of the sacrament itself. Remember, this catechism is echoing the teachings from Council of Trent.
If you can keep your line of reasoning focused on the fact that it is strictly teaching about the necessity of the sacrament, you will not be able to take anything out of context as you do now.
Start a few paragraphs prior in the same catechism and you will find it teaches:
Necessity of Baptism
If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Pay special attention to the above paragraph. There is no need to interpret it, simply read it as it was written and you will understand the teaching they are trying to convey.
As the heading states, it is teaching about the necessity of the sacrament, not a desire for it being equal to the sacrament. Note it teaches that the law of baptism extends to all - according to the words of Our Lord in John 3:5. No hidden or alternate meaning and no exceptions, no one can possibly be honest and say that John 3:5 does not mean exactly what it says, namely, unless we are baptized, we will go to hell - that is what "eternal misery and destruction" means. That's why they said "eternal" misery.
It then goes on to reaffirm the necessity of the sacrament in infants:
Infant Baptism: It's Necessity
That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.
This partial snip confirms that the sacrament is a necessity for not only all adults, but also for all infants ...."is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers."
Again, simply read the teaching as it is written, then accept the teaching for what it says. When you do this, you will find it is teaching that the sacrament is a necessity - no other interpretation is possible.
Baptism Of Adults
With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.
*Now* they start to teach about *the necessity of the desire* for the sacrament in adults - something an infant is incapable of. As such, for those adults who were never baptized as infants, they are not to be baptized as an infant would be baptized for the simple reason that adults can; 1) refuse the sacrament altogether, 2) receive the sacrament unworthily, i.e. because the fiancee demands it or for an inheritance or for some other such purely selfish motive.
Bottom line is that the adult to be baptized needs to honestly desire to be baptized.
They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly
If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.
They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.
Here again, Trent is explaining that adults need to be baptized and why it should be done without undue delay. Note all the graces and fruits they who are not baptized are deprived of.
Up to this point we can easily see that Trent is teaching about the necessity of the sacrament - and if you were to go back further than just the few paragraphs I posted, you would see this necessity is taught from the beginning over and over again. The same thing is true if you were to continue reading, over and over again Trent is teaching about the necessity of the sacrament.
NOW, if you accept the fact that up to this point, Trent has taught over and over again about why the sacrament is an absolute necessity, you will understand the teaching below has not in anyway changed from what Trent has taught up to this point.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Not only is this delay to receive the sacrament mandatory to a certain extent, ( for the purpose of preparatory education and entrance into the Church for the adult ), it teaches the reasons why this delay is advantageous - this delay can help be the cause for the adult to have an even greater desire to receive the sacrament then if there were no delay or an insufficient delay - in a word, call it, anticipation.
THAT is what "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." is about.
"their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, is a necessary requirement for the adult who is about to receive the sacrament - and yes, this requirement will, as Trent teaches, avail them to sanctifying grace, but Trent does not teach that this requirement for the worthy reception of the sacrament will put them in the state of sanctifying grace without the sacrament, nor does Trent teach that this requirement for the worthy reception of the sacrament rewards the adult salvation.
But to the BODer, they somehow are able to ignore or completely reject all the teachings that repeat over and over again about the necessity of the sacrament that they just got done reading, including the explicit teaching that state whoever does not get baptized will suffer "eternal misery and destruction" - which was under the heading named: Necessity of Baptism!
Comparison of the two cases (infant baptism v. adult baptism) indicates that the reassurance inherent in the text, would take effect in the event of the candidate dying before receiving the sacrament.
The Doctrine of Divine Providence teaches that one who sincerely desires to be baptized in order to become a Catholic, a child of God and an heir to heaven, will be baptized with water before they die. Whoever cannot accept that, has very weak or no faith at all.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.
8 *For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?
10 Or if he shall ask a fish, will he reach him a serpent?
11 If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
* 8. Whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment. (Haydock)