Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: XavierSem on March 14, 2019, 02:31:41 AM

Title: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: XavierSem on March 14, 2019, 02:31:41 AM
St. Augustine both taught BOD and also said, "Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the Sacrament of the Mediator."..Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16." https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

If one rejects or criticizes the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Blood, one has to first of all absurdly try to argue against Catechisms approved and authorized by the most traditional Popes, like Pope St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism of Trent, and Pope St. Pius X - this in fact the Dimonds and their disciples attempt, which is a manifest absurdity and almost a logical consequence of their heretical position. Richard Ibranyi taking their own heretical methodology further than them has, at last count, rejected something like all the Popes for the last millenium, showing how schismatic and heretical the sedevacantist Dimondist methodology really is. If one proceeds like that, one loses Faith and Charity by that means, the two Bonds that Unite us in the Mystical Body of Christ, and falls into open schism and even heresy.

But St. Augustine's view is excellent, very probably true, and eminently defensible: if we recall Fr. Feeney near the end of his life stated, "there is no one about to die in the state of grace to whom God cannot provide Baptism, and indeed Baptism of Water", it is clear these are not the words of a man who denies Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, but believes God will supply Baptism of Water to those who have been praying and working to receive the graces both of justification and perseverance from Him. Do you agree with him? I do.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 14, 2019, 05:26:25 AM
But St. Augustine's view is excellent, very probably true, and eminently defensible: if we recall Fr. Feeney near the end of his life stated, "there is no one about to die in the state of grace to whom God cannot provide Baptism, and indeed Baptism of Water", it is clear these are not the words of a man who denies Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, but believes God will supply Baptism of Water to those who have been praying and working to receive the graces both of justification and perseverance from Him. Do you agree with him? I do.
Yes, I agree.

I believe a BOD, which is a man made doctrine that teaches a good intention by an infidel, brought on by an unforeseen accident, is salvific, is a terrible insult to the Providence of an all knowing and all mighty God. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 14, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
If I may,
I honestly don't know the Center's position well enough to approve and you didn't provide enough of it to even comment on, but I do object to this thought of yours.
 The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. 
How does one arrive at the state of grace before baptism? Through a sacrament?

The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the only remedy for Original Sin is “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made us unto justice, sanctification, and redemption” and that “the merit of Jesus Christ is applied…by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church.” 

What form of the Church is used in BOD?   
Who is the minister?
Do you know what Palagianism is?
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: moneil on March 14, 2019, 10:07:53 PM

I was born on June 28, 1951 at Seattle’s Providence Hospital, founded by Mother Joseph of the Sisters of Providence.  The original edifice, designed by her, was built in 1882 but replaced after 1911.  I was baptized at Seattle’s St. Joseph’s parish on July 29, 1951 by Father Xavier Ryan, SJ.  In 1955 my family moved from Seattle to establish a family farm from virgin land in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Columbia Basin Project … we still have the farm but the land is leased out; My 97 year old mother still lives here in her house and for the past two years I’ve kept bachelor quarters in the basement to be nearby and help care for her.  I received my First Confession and First Holy Communion in May of 1959 at St. Patrick’s in Pasco, WA from Father William Schmidt.  I was confirmed by Bishop Bernard Topel of the Diocese of Spokane (WA) on May 4, 1964 at St. Patrick’s.

During all of this my catechesis and formation in the True Faith was from the Baltimore Catechism, as was true for virtually all U.S. Catholics from 1885 until the post VII tumult of the late 1960’s.  My understanding is that it is based on St. Robert Bellarmine’s Small Catechism of 1614.  The Baltimore Catechism does now and has always carried an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat from the Church’s magisterial authority.  It clearly teaches Baptism of Water, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire (not to mention the three elements required for a Mortal Sin, a term all too often tossed around very loosely).

I’ll stick with the Baltimore Catechism.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 15, 2019, 05:15:44 AM
During all of this my catechesis and formation in the True Faith was from the Baltimore Catechism, as was true for virtually all U.S. Catholics from 1885 until the post VII tumult of the late 1960’s.  My understanding is that it is based on St. Robert Bellarmine’s Small Catechism of 1614.  The Baltimore Catechism does now and has always carried an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat from the Church’s magisterial authority.  It clearly teaches Baptism of Water, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire (not to mention the three elements required for a Mortal Sin, a term all too often tossed around very loosely).

I’ll stick with the Baltimore Catechism.

The Baltimore Catechism is indeed where nearly everyone learned their faith, that is, since the time of it's publication up till V2. However, prior to then, people learned the truths of the faith without it. Just something to always keep in mind.

St. Paul in Scripture is quite explicit when he taught quite specifically that there is only one baptism, not three, which is what people learned up until the Baltimore Catechism. Just something else to always keep in mind.

Our faith teaches us that no man can save himself, that every human creature that has ever lived and ever will live, is wholly dependent upon God (and His Holy Church) to provide for each of us individually the means of salvation, without which no man can be saved. A BOD, whatever it is, can only work without Divine Providence, God's Providence as got to be altogether void or missing from it's formula in order for the possibility of a BOD to work. 

The protestants believe they obtain forgiveness by confessing their sins directly to God, which is contrary to what the Church teaches. A BOD is protestant in nature, is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the constant teaching of the Church and it wholly rejects God's Providence, Who, since the promulgation of the Gospel, has provided the time, the minister and the water for everyone who ever has been and ever will be baptized.

Before the Baltimore Catechism, St. Paul said: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

How many baptisms are there?

 


Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 15, 2019, 08:11:19 AM
The Baltimore Catechism was produced by American Bishops.  It's hardly infallible.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 15, 2019, 08:18:28 AM
 
1.    Catechisms are not protected by infallibility. Introduction XXXVI from the Fifteenth Printing of The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Since catechisms are not infallible, there is a possibility that erroneous theories such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood could make their way into them. Moreover, the original edition of The Catechism of the Council of Trent did not contain baptism of blood or baptism of desire. This is attested to by Fr. Wathen in his work Who Shall Ascend (p.225), where he states, “In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms [baptisms of desire and blood] until the late nineteenth century.” Modernists (Modernism is the synthesis of all error) have recently inserted these ideas into the catechisms and other Catholic publications like the Denzinger with an eye to the end goal of attacking the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In their ancient form, BOD and BOB concerned only the catechumen and as such they are a theological speculation that is in error only of only a minor theological note, but in their modern form, that of the “anonymous Christian” variety by Karl Rahner, the idea of implicit desire was introduced and taken to heretical extremes, ie baptism doesn’t even have to be desired to place one in the Church. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, which may well actually be faked by +Cushing, has been elevated to dogma, placed in the Denzinger, and is even used in Vatican 2 as support for its worst heresy. If one holds the idea of implicit BOD then one cannot argue against Vatican 2’s new ecclesiology, one must respect as deeply profound John Paul 2’s subsistence theology, and one cannot condemn the interfaith ceremonies of Assisi.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 08:34:19 AM
Xavier, you completely misinterpret the quotation from St. Augustine.

Please note that Baptism of Desire is NOT the Sacrament of Baptism.  So please re-read the citation from St. Augustine with that in mind and try again.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 08:35:32 AM
Yes, I agree.

I believe a BOD, which is a man made doctrine that teaches a good intention by an infidel, brought on by an unforeseen accident, is salvific, is a terrible insult to the Providence of an all knowing and all mighty God.

Stubborn, you're only agreeing because Xavier is misinterpreting the citation from St. Augustine.  He takes it as evidence in SUPPORT of Baptism of Desire, rather than the opposite ... which is exactly what it is.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 08:47:43 AM

. Moreover, the original edition of The Catechism of the Council of Trent did not contain baptism of blood or baptism of desire. This is attested to by Fr. Wathen in his work Who Shall Ascend (p.225), where he states, “In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms [baptisms of desire and blood] until the late nineteenth century.” 
Joe,

Are you sure Father Wathen is talking of the Catechism of Trent and not the Baltimore Catechism? If so, what authority does he give for that other than the assertion?

There's a video on youtube where Father Jenkins talks about seeing an original edition of the Catechism of Trent in Latin which contained the famous passage about BOD availing to justification in case of an unforeseen accident preventing baptism. At least Father Jenkins give as authority his own eyes. 


DR
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 15, 2019, 08:52:51 AM
Stubborn, you're only agreeing because Xavier is misinterpreting the citation from St. Augustine.  He takes it as evidence in SUPPORT of Baptism of Desire, rather than the opposite ... which is exactly what it is.
I thought he was saying that the Church's idea of a BOD is that of Fr. Feeney's, namely, that God will supply the sacrament of  Baptism to those who desire it. That's what I was agreeing with.
 

BTW Xavier, your quite from Fr. Feeney is originally from his book, The Bread of Life, although he may have repeated it numerous times even before his death.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Last Tradhican on March 15, 2019, 11:00:17 AM
In 25 years of dealing with this subject of BOD, I have never once met a defender of BOD that did not stretch it to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church. It is called salvation by belief in a God that rewards, implicit faith for short. What is most surprising is that even the anti-Vatican II traditionalist priestly groups, both sedevacantes and SSPX, both teach their seminarians that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards (that is: people who do not want to be Catholic, don not want to be baptized, do not even believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, that those people can be saved), and yet they reject Vatican II when it teaches the same thing as clear as day.

Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 12:51:08 PM
I thought he was saying that the Church's idea of a BOD is that of Fr. Feeney's, namely, that God will supply the sacrament of  Baptism to those who desire it. That's what I was agreeing with.
 

BTW Xavier, your quite from Fr. Feeney is originally from his book, The Bread of Life, although he may have repeated it numerous times even before his death.

Xavier was using the St. Augustine quotation as evidence in FAVOR of BoD, rather than against it ... which is the opposite of St. Augustine's meaning.  And his misapplication of the quote is predicated on the imposition of "impossibility" on God and Divine Providence.

See, the BODers respond that Feeneyism makes God bound by the Sacraments, whereas the real truth is that BoDers bind God with "impossibility".  We in fact say that God binds US with the Sacraments, not that He is bound BY them, and that He is perfectly capable of getting the Sacrament to His elect, as St. Augustine points out.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 15, 2019, 01:09:27 PM
Quote
Are you sure Father Wathen is talking of the Catechism of Trent and not the Baltimore Catechism? If so, what authority does he give for that other than the assertion?
Pretty sure Fr Wathen was talking about the Baltimore Catechism because i've heard that it was corrupted from the original edition.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: ihsv on March 15, 2019, 01:13:46 PM
Indeed.  It is as easy for God to get water to even the most "impossible" of cases as it is for Him to create a thousand universes.  

St. Thomas Aquinas says that the providence of God governs the world and all things as if YOU were the only one in it.  Each one of us has His undivided attention.  And he does this for each and every individual.

And He is more interested in our spiritual well-being and salvation than we are.

"Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?"
[Matthew 6:26]
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 01:14:59 PM
In 25 years of dealing with this subject of BOD, I have never once met a defender of BOD that did not stretch it to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church. It is called salvation by belief in a God that rewards, implicit faith for short. What is most surprising is that even the anti-Vatican II traditionalist priestly groups, both sedevacantes and SSPX, both teach their seminarians that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards (that is: people who do not want to be Catholic, don not want to be baptized, do not even believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, that those people can be saved), and yet they reject Vatican II when it teaches the same thing as clear as day.
You mean "met" as in face to face or in person I presume. Because there are those around here who I'm sure you have encountered that recognize BOD without stretching it "to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church." I am one; off the top of my head, I believe Nishant would be one also. There are others.  
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
Pretty sure Fr Wathen was talking about the Baltimore Catechism because i've heard that it was corrupted from the original edition.
I think so too, but I don't know the quote so I can't say. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 15, 2019, 01:21:26 PM
Xavier was using the St. Augustine quotation as evidence in FAVOR of BoD, rather than against it ... which is the opposite of St. Augustine's meaning.  And his misapplication of the quote is predicated on the imposition of "impossibility" on God and Divine Providence.
Ahh, I see that now.
That's pretty screwed up.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 15, 2019, 01:25:55 PM
Joe,

Are you sure Father Wathen is talking of the Catechism of Trent and not the Baltimore Catechism? If so, what authority does he give for that other than the assertion?
All anyone has to do is read Trent's Catechism as it is written, a BOD is not even hinted in it anywhere.

ETA: Fr. Wathen quoted the Council of Trent for sure - I don't know if he quoted Trent's Catechism or not.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 03:01:01 PM
I believe Xavier is referring to the position of the SBC as being that God will provide the sacrament to all of His elect, to all the saved. I think that indeed is the SBC position. I believe the SBC recognizes that someone could be justified by desire and if they died before receipt of the sacrament in that justified state they would be saved, BUT THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL AND NEVER HAPPENS.

Thus, the SBC agrees with the Roman Catechism that "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." The SBC then adds, "but there ain't no should." :)

Xavier says this is the position of St. Augustine (we can at least say he joins St. Thomas in citing St. Augustine as recognizing BOD), and Xavier then closes as to the position of St. Augustine/the SBC: "St. Augustine's view is excellent, very probably true, and eminently defensible."

Good for him.  

Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 15, 2019, 03:11:54 PM
I believe Xavier is referring to the position of the SBC as being that God will provide the sacrament to all of His elect, to all the saved. I think that indeed is the SBC position. I believe the SBC recognizes that someone could be justified by desire and if they died before receipt of the sacrament in that justified state they would be saved, BUT THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL AND NEVER HAPPENS.

Thus, the SBC agrees with the Roman Catechism that "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." The SBC then adds, "but there ain't no should." :)

Xavier says this is the position of St. Augustine (we can at least say he joins St. Thomas in citing St. Augustine as recognizing BOD), and Xavier then closes as to the position of St. Augustine/the SBC: "St. Augustine's view is excellent, very probably true, and eminently defensible."

Good for him.  
It says "unforeseen accident", not "unforeseen accidental death" or "accidental death".

It says "grace and righteousness", not "salvation" - which is why SBC correctly agrees with what it teaches. Again, when read as it is written, a BOD is never even hinted in Trent's catechism.  

Note that "grace and righteousness" are strictly for the living. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 03:17:46 PM
Thus, the SBC agrees with the Roman Catechism that "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."

This is a universally misunderstood/misinterpreted quotation.  This does not mean that the desire for Baptism supplies for grace and righteousness, but that the desire would be efficacious in order to obtain the Sacrament (despite the theoretical possibility of an accident intervening).  In other words, the desire for the Sacrament would prevail over any accident that might prevent its reception.  In other words, it's a restating of the very St. Augustine position that was cited by the OP.  So the more appropriate translation is more like, "the desire for the Sacrament would avail them to grace lest an unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed ..."

There's an analogous quote in St. Fulgentius, where he's explicitly rejecting Baptism of Desire, and he uses the same expression ("avail to") ... probably the Latin valere in both cases.  I'll have to dig it up but I've cited it here before.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 03:21:47 PM
OK, here.

St. Fulgentius
Quote
And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith, ... God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...

Teaching in favor of Baptism of Desire, right?
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 03:23:04 PM
Wait.  Not so fast.

St. Fulgentius
Quote
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.

It's not unlikely that Trent had this teaching in mind with that Catechism passage.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 03:24:48 PM
St. Fulgentius teaches, like Trent, that both Baptism and the desire (in his words, "confession") are required for salvation.
Quote
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.

As an interesting note, the teaching of St. Fulgentius was adopted almost word for word in the dogmatic EENS definition of Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino.

St. Fulgentius
Quote
Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.

Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino
Quote
those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 03:34:41 PM
It says "unforeseen accident", not "unforeseen accidental death" or "accidental death".

It says "grace and righteousness", not "salvation" - which is why SBC correctly agrees with what it teaches. Again, when read as it is written, a BOD is never even hinted in Trent's catechism.  

Note that "grace and righteousness" are strictly for the living.

Great point.  Also, in Latin, the word "accident" does not have the same connotation that it does in English (severe injury putting one on the brink of death).  It just means some circumstance happens to come up.  Recall St. Thomas using the term "substance" vs. "accidents" (something that happens to be there).

So then Trent's passage will mean something like -- "an adult's resolve to receive Baptism would overcome any obstacle that might get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament."
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: ihsv on March 15, 2019, 03:41:59 PM
Great point.  Also, in Latin, the word "accident" does not have the same connotation that it does in English (severe injury putting one on the brink of death).  It just means some circumstance happens to come up.  Recall St. Thomas using the term "substance" vs. "accidents" (something that happens to be there).

So then Trent's passage will mean something like -- "an adult's resolve to receive Baptism would overcome any obstacle that might get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament."
Ladislaus, could you provide the Latin word that's used there?  That would be very useful in future discussions.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 04:26:13 PM
It says "unforeseen accident", not "unforeseen accidental death" or "accidental death".

It says "grace and righteousness", not "salvation" - which is why SBC correctly agrees with what it teaches. Again, when read as it is written, a BOD is never even hinted in Trent's catechism.  

Note that "grace and righteousness" are strictly for the living.
Stubborn,

Brother Andre Marie had an episode on BOD on his Reconquest Radio show, Episode 109. He cites several good articles in his discussion, including Raymond Karem's original Reply to a Liberal Part III, also posted on catholicisim.org - https://veritasradionetwork.com/reconquest-episode-109-catholic-considerations-on-baptism-of-desire/ (https://veritasradionetwork.com/reconquest-episode-109-catholic-considerations-on-baptism-of-desire/)

You know the history of this and the importance of Karam's article in From the Housetops. In the article Karam says this:

Quote
"In answer to our third question, therefore, we shall say that, according to the majority of the Fathers and Doctors, baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled . . ."

https://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html#3. (https://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html#3.)
(https://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html#3.)
Are you saying Brother Andre, or more broadly the SBC, disagrees with that?

I say they do not : de jure it could [Karam, "can be sufficient"] SAVE, but de facto it doesn't happen.

DR
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 15, 2019, 04:27:30 PM
Joe,

Are you sure Father Wathen is talking of the Catechism of Trent and not the Baltimore Catechism? If so, what authority does he give for that other than the assertion?

There's a video on youtube where Father Jenkins talks about seeing an original edition of the Catechism of Trent in Latin which contained the famous passage about BOD availing to justification in case of an unforeseen accident preventing baptism. At least Father Jenkins give as authority his own eyes.


DR
I may need to correct/retract this but off the top of my head I can't remember. Please give me some time to read it again.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 04:33:01 PM
St. Fulgentius teaches, like Trent, that both Baptism and the desire (in his words, "confession") are required for salvation.


Quote
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no availBaptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.


Except Trent doesn't have a "ne" or "neque" before "avail." 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 04:33:30 PM
I may need to correct/retract this but off the top of my head I can't remember. Please give me some time to read it again.
Thank you.
Sure, Joe. Thanks for checking. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 04:38:19 PM
Wait.  Not so fast.

St. Fulgentius

Quote
Quote
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.

It's not unlikely that Trent had this teaching in mind with that Catechism passage.

Except the Roman Catechism lacks the "since" and what follows.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 15, 2019, 05:29:06 PM
Stubborn,

Brother Andre Marie had an episode on BOD on his Reconquest Radio show, Episode 109. He cites several good articles in his discussion, including Raymond Karem's original Reply to a Liberal Part III, also posted on catholicisim.org - https://veritasradionetwork.com/reconquest-episode-109-catholic-considerations-on-baptism-of-desire/ (https://veritasradionetwork.com/reconquest-episode-109-catholic-considerations-on-baptism-of-desire/)

You know the history of this and the importance of Karam's article in From the Housetops. In the article Karam says this:
 (https://catholicism.org/rptal-part3.html#3.)
Are you saying Brother Andre, or more broadly the SBC, disagrees with that?

I say they do not : de jure it could [Karam, "can be sufficient"] SAVE, but de facto it doesn't happen.

DR
I wondered if the SBC, or one/some of their groups who went under conciliar church rule, were going to fold. Brother Andre and whoever is with him on this, is on their own. By that I mean they should disavow Fr. Feeney as their founder and go create their own community somewhere else and call it something else - iow, be outwardly, upfront honest.

The most obvious of all possible points *against* using Trent's Catechism to prove Trent taught a BOD, is that it says "grace and righteousness", which can only apply to the living, whereas "salvation" can only apply to the dead, this should be obvious to all who read that passage honestly from the catechism.

Obviously one can only attain salvation after death. Until death, i.e. whilst we live, we all strive to be in the state of grace and righteousness, which are attributes of the living, and also especially the dying, but definitely not the dead.

Know what I mean?
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 05:39:54 PM
I wondered if the SBC, or one/some of their groups who went under conciliar church rule, were going to fold. Brother Andre and whoever is with him on this, is on their own. By that I mean they should disavow Fr. Feeney as their founder and go create their own community somewhere else and call it something else - iow, be outwardly, upfront honest.


Stubborn,

For agreeing with Karam? Fr. Feeney said he agreed with Karam.

DR
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 05:43:33 PM
The most obvious of all possible points *against* using Trent's Catechism to prove Trent taught a BOD, is that it says "grace and righteousness", which can only apply to the living, whereas "salvation" can only apply to the dead, this should be obvious to all who read that passage honestly from the catechism.

Obviously one can only attain salvation after death. Until death, i.e. whilst we live, we all strive to be in the state of grace and righteousness, which are attributes of the living, and also especially the dying, but definitely not the dead.

Know what I mean?

What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Cantarella on March 15, 2019, 06:29:12 PM
What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.

That biblical passage only shows that Justification is attributed not only to her Faith, but also to love or Charity (and Hope too!, even if it is not named here). Basically, it is referring to the three theological virtues in the perfect pattern of true penance, which do not exclude each other. That is all there is to it.

There is no reason to suspect that the woman died without the water Baptism.   
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 06:37:57 PM
That biblical passage only shows that Justification is attributed not only to her Faith, but also to love or Charity (and Hope too!, even if it is not named here). Basically, it is referring to the three theological virtues in the perfect pattern of true penance, which do not exclude each other. That is all there is to it.

There is no reason to suspect that the woman died without the water Baptism.  

Hi. I'm not arguing that, and it was not the purpose for the quote.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Last Tradhican on March 15, 2019, 07:47:40 PM
Last Tradhican wrote -  " In 25 years of dealing with this subject of BOD, I have never once met a defender of BOD that did not stretch it to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church. It is called salvation by belief in a God that rewards, implicit faith for short. What is most surprising is that even the anti-Vatican II traditionalist priestly groups, both sedevacantes and SSPX, both teach their seminarians that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards (that is: people who do not want to be Catholic, don not want to be baptized, do not even believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, that those people can be saved), and yet they reject Vatican II when it teaches the same thing as clear as day."


You mean "met" as in face to face or in person I presume. Because there are those around here who I'm sure you have encountered that recognize BOD without stretching it "to include salvation for all good people in all religions outside of the Church." I am one; off the top of my head, I believe Nishant would be one also. There are others.  

I have never met a defender of BOD that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith, that is, salvation by belief in a god the rewards. People who restrict their belief in baptism of desire to a catechumen, do not go to forums to argue about it relentlessly, to defend their BOD. Nishant had to be pushed to get him to the position of "saying" that he restricts it, and I for you stated that I do not believe him. Anyone that really restricts BOD to the catechumen, would not be posting in favor of the BOD for fear of being associated with modernists who teach the false BOD.  I have never seen a person who says they restrict BOD to the catechumen, attack the real enemy, the 99% of BODers who stretch it to the max, salvation by belief in a god that rewards.

No defender of EENS as it is written, ever cared one iota about the argument that a catechumen who gets killed on the way to be baptized, "may" be saved. That was never what all of these endless threads on CI were about.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on March 15, 2019, 08:07:45 PM
I'm too new (to the faith, not even just to the forum) to state any kind of strong opinion here, but I do have a question about what's being stated here.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre, or do any conservative advocates of a BOD that applies to more than just catechumens, believe in salvation *by* faith in a God who rewards?  Or do they, rather, state that belief in a God that rewards is simply a minimum threshold below which nobody could ever be saved, under any circumstance?

As I recall Lefebvre (right or wrong) said that if a non-Catholic was saved it would be despite their religion, not because of it.

Though that whole portion of the exchange bothered me, one thing that *really* bothered me about Bishop Barron's whole answer to Shapiro being like "I'm a Jew, can I still go to heaven?" was that he claimed Vatican II says even an *atheist* of good will "can be" saved.  It especially bothered me for two reasons.  One of the reasons was that Vatican II simply doesn't say this.  It doesn't mention atheists at all.  But the other thing is that the idea that someone can be ignorant of God's eternal power and divine nature seems to straight up contradict Romans 1.  So like, even if you can debate when/if/how someone could be invincibly ignorant of Jesus Christ, or the Catholic Church specifically, it seems like according to sacred scripture it is *not possible* to be ignorant of God's eternal power or divine nature. 

Would using that reasoning, and thus saying that its hypothetically possible for God (by his grace and despite, not because of their errors) to save someone who believes in a God who rewards and is perfectly contrite for any mortal sins, but that God would not save an atheist in any case because the atheist is AUTOMATICALLY in mortal sin for denying what he knows full well is true, be distinguishable from saying anyone is saved BECAUSE they believe in a God who rewards?

Note that I'm posing a question here, not claiming that I have this right.  I'm also not arguing AGAINST the strict position here, just wondering if we can logically deliniate. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 09:01:23 PM
Ladislaus, could you provide the Latin word that's used there?  That would be very useful in future discussions.

Sorry.  I had a Latin copy at one point but can't find it anymore.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 09:03:56 PM


Except Trent doesn't have a "ne" or "neque" before "avail."

No, but the sense is the equivalent.  Ne is not strictly required to have the same sense.  One clue would be whether the verb is in the subjunctive mood.  What's key is that St. Fulgentius uses the same concept (we'll have to see if it's the same Latin verb) without it necessary implying that it's sufficient in and of itself for salvation, rather sufficient for salvation in the sense of being sufficient to insure reception of the Sacrament.

He said that confession "avails" for salvation.  Right?

But HOW does it avail?  It avails by insuring reception of the Sacrament.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
It's not unlikely that Trent had this teaching in mind with that Catechism passage.


Except the Roman Catechism lacks the "since" and what follows.

No, but the point is that avail to salvation does not necessarily mean that it's sufficient in se, but rather sufficient in the sense of insuring Baptism ... in the sense of "seek and you shall find".  St. Ambrose actually used the same line of thought in his oration about Valetinian.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2019, 09:14:28 PM
What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.

Not saved in the sense of final perseverance.  Whether or not you agree with Father Feeney's application, it's absolutely true that there cannot strictly be any salvation until one has died with the grace of final perseverance.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 09:38:25 PM
I have never met a defender of BOD that does not believe in salvation by implicit faith, that is, salvation by belief in a god the rewards.

Well, behold and see:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'implicit-faith'-heretical/

 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'implicit-faith'-heretical/)https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/heresy-(another-eens-thread)/msg128216/#msg128216

 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/heresy-(another-eens-thread)/msg128216/#msg128216)But I don't know if I'd call myself a "defender" of BOD - I feel bound to accept it by virtue of Trent, the Council and the Catechism, limited to its terms. And then St. Thomas, etc. 

It's an important issue because it's about truth, and how one handles certain facts and givens in argument. 

People who restrict their belief in baptism of desire to a catechumen, do not go to forums to argue about it relentlessly, to defend their BOD. Nishant had to be pushed to get him to the position of "saying" that he restricts it, and I for you stated that I do not believe him. Anyone that really restricts BOD to the catechumen, would not be posting in favor of the BOD for fear of being associated with modernists who teach the false BOD.  

I have no fear of standing up for the truth, particularly on a forum typing in a comfortable chair in exchanges with people I'll never meet - Posting. Knuckleheads will always make leaps of false association. I could care less. Fear?

I have never seen a person who says they restrict BOD to the catechumen, attack the real enemy, the 99% of BODers who stretch it to the max, salvation by belief in a god that rewards.

Well, I've been attacking implicit faith and a dilution of EENS for a couple of decades now. Am I a BODer?

No defender of EENS as it is written, ever cared one iota about the argument that a catechumen who gets killed on the way to be baptized, "may" be saved. That was never what all of these endless threads on CI were about.

Truth matters. If the Church teaches that desire could save, that a catechumen could be saved by faith, hope and charity without the receipt of the sacrament per Church teaching and that is denied, it matters. It matters when truth is denied, period. One should care about that; I care about that.  
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 09:40:48 PM
No, but the sense is the equivalent.  Ne is not strictly required to have the same sense.  One clue would be whether the verb is in the subjunctive mood.  What's key is that St. Fulgentius uses the same concept (we'll have to see if it's the same Latin verb) without it necessary implying that it's sufficient in and of itself for salvation, rather sufficient for salvation in the sense of being sufficient to insure reception of the Sacrament.

He said that confession "avails" for salvation.  Right?

But HOW does it avail?  It avails by insuring reception of the Sacrament.
Lad,

You often make interesting arguments with insight. I'll always give you that. 

DR
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 09:47:38 PM
Not saved in the sense of final perseverance.  Whether or not you agree with Father Feeney's application, it's absolutely true that there cannot strictly be any salvation until one has died with the grace of final perseverance.

Yes, yes, I agree with this.

The point of the quote was Christ referred to a living person as saved now, present tense, when He is referring to the infallibly decreed future of one of His elect. The Roman Catechism, similarly, says "would avail," referring to a future state of a living catechumen if . . .

Not buying Stubborn's "grace and righteousness" refers to the living, and "salvation" only to the dead. Again, Jesus referred to one of His elect - who would be saved strictly speaking, futuro - as saved, present tense.

DR
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: verilyCatholic on March 15, 2019, 09:52:04 PM
Pius IX proclaimed Baptism of desire for some people outside the Church. As far as I have seen, no cleric has ever said he was wrong, not even Fr. Feeney.

Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 15, 2019, 09:56:34 PM
Hold on, there.  Before you interpret Christ as supporting a protestantized “I’m already saved!” ideal, it would be wise to study the Latin word that St Jerome used.  The translation of “saved” into English could be wrong or inexact.   

Secondly, I always interpreted that passage to mean “Thy Faith has saved thee”...FROM SIN (ie state of mortal sin).  Makes no sense for Christ to be speaking of eternal salvation as there are absolutely no other biblical ideas of this nature anywhere else, and plenty of passages which contradict your interpretation.  
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 15, 2019, 10:46:56 PM
To whom it may concern,


In Fr Wathen's book Who Shall Ascend, he does in fact claim the term BOD and BOB do not appear in the Catechism of the Council of Trent until the Nineteenth century. It is in the first footnote of Part one-chapter three, section C. I will copy/paste it here with the paragraph it is footing. I must confess some sloppiness here as I put the wrong page number down. It is page 112 in my PDF copy.


Salvation cannot be gained by the merest desire for it, or a vague willingness to do God's will, or an unexpressed tolerance of God's existence and sovereignty, or whatever other way in which the term "baptism of desire" is understood, whose number seems as great as there are individuals who swear by it. And it is dishonest for anyone to deny that a major problem with the use of the expression is that no one may define the word authoritatively, and to act as if those who do not accept this definition are unreasonable or stone-hearted. The Church has never defined the word, nor used it in any of its official statements. 1.

1 Some will want to assert that the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are taught in "The Catechism of the Council of Trent. "Item1: In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.



To DecemRationis,
I do not no on what authority Fr Wathen bases this position.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 11:05:20 PM
Hold on, there.  Before you interpret Christ as supporting a protestantized “I’m already saved!” ideal, it would be wise to study the Latin word that St Jerome used.  The translation of “saved” into English could be wrong or inexact.  

Secondly, I always interpreted that passage to mean “Thy Faith has saved thee”...FROM SIN (ie state of mortal sin).  Makes no sense for Christ to be speaking of eternal salvation as there are absolutely no other biblical ideas of this nature anywhere else, and plenty of passages which contradict your interpretation.  
Come on, Pax, are you even reading what I write - the "point of the quote was Christ referred to a living person as saved now, present tense" - actually he said, "saved," past tense - "when HE is referring to the infallibly decreed future of one of His elect."

I'm not interpreting according to a "protestantized 'I'm already saved!" I'm simply being open to the reality of language and it's usages.

Were the elect saved when God chose them before the foundation of the world, before they were even born? In one sense, absolutely.  

And faith (with hope and charity) saves, the faith you exercise when alive, not dead. How can faith save if you must have it when alive - if you're only saved when dead? And don't tell me faith only saves from sin, not from eternal damnation.

Again, I'm simply being open to the reality of language and its usages.

Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 15, 2019, 11:06:38 PM
To whom it may concern,


In Fr Wathen's book Who Shall Ascend, he does in fact claim the term BOD and BOB do not appear in the Catechism of the Council of Trent until the Nineteenth century. It is in the first footnote of Part one-chapter three, section C. I will copy/paste it here with the paragraph it is footing. I must confess some sloppiness here as I put the wrong page number down. It is page 112 in my PDF copy.


Salvation cannot be gained by the merest desire for it, or a vague willingness to do God's will, or an unexpressed tolerance of God's existence and sovereignty, or whatever other way in which the term "baptism of desire" is understood, whose number seems as great as there are individuals who swear by it. And it is dishonest for anyone to deny that a major problem with the use of the expression is that no one may define the word authoritatively, and to act as if those who do not accept this definition are unreasonable or stone-hearted. The Church has never defined the word, nor used it in any of its official statements. 1.

1 Some will want to assert that the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are taught in "The Catechism of the Council of Trent. "Item1: In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.



To DecemRationis,
I do not no on what authority Fr Wathen bases this position.
Wow. Thanks Joe. Need to do some investigating now. 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Motorede on March 15, 2019, 11:23:54 PM
Come on, Pax, are you even reading what I write - the "point of the quote was Christ referred to a living person as saved now, present tense" - actually he said, "saved," past tense - "when HE is referring to the infallibly decreed future of one of His elect."

I'm not interpreting according to a "protestantized 'I'm already saved!" I'm simply being open to the reality of language and it's usages.

Were the elect saved when God chose them before the foundation of the world, before they were even born? In one sense, absolutely.  

And faith (with hope and charity) saves, the faith you exercise when alive, not dead. How can faith save if you must have it when alive - if you're only saved when dead? And don't tell me faith only saves from sin, not from eternal damnation.

Again, I'm simply being open to the reality of language and its usages.
I don't think your quote provides enough information for us to determine that Our Lord was speaking to her as "being saved" in the Old Law or the New Law. As far as we know she might have died before the New Law was instituted as did the Good Thief. Her faith would have saved her under the old dispensation b/c faith in the promised Messias to come plus contrition for sins would avail unto salvation. Under the New Dispensation:No. She would have needed the Sacraments--at least holy Baptism. So I don't think your chapter and verse quote help this discussion because we don't know the woman's future.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: XavierSem on March 16, 2019, 01:09:38 AM
In all the commentaries on Acts 10:44-48, you will find (and St. Luke and St. Peter themselves imply it) that Cornelius the catechumen (and both St. Augustine and St. Thomas also teach this) received the Holy Spirit before his Baptism. Thus, he received justification by Baptism of Desire and salvation after receiving the Sacrament. The question is, whether all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive the Sacrament of Baptism? Here, St. Augustine answers yes, certainly, while St. Thomas answers, no, not necessarily. This question is not settled by the Magisterium. St. Augustine's position is theologically defensible. There is a text in the Gospel of Nicodemus which has come up in recent research that suggests the Ot patriarchs were actually baptized in some way before entering heaven. If so, that would support St. Augustine's position. In the Middle Ages, there was that decree of Pope Innocent that said one can hold the opinion of the Blessed Fathers. The text of St. Augustine cited there, that "Baptism is administered invisibly" to the person who desired and did not despise it is not clear whether it refers to Baptism of Desire or to the Sacrament of Baptism. At any rate, the Church certainly decreed that justified catechumens will be certainly saved, because Baptism will at least invisibly be administered to them.

Now, for those of you who agree with the Dimonds and think BOD is a "heresy", especially if you are sedevacantists, explain why Pope St. Pius X and Pope St. Pius V (and Pope Leo XIII who approved the Baltimore Catechism etc) did not "lose their office" upon approving it.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: "17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."

This clear and straightforward. Baptism of Desire certainly exists and the Dimonds are wrong and themselves outside the Church, where there is no hope or possibility of salvation, unless they return. Fr. Feeney's opinion as held by St. Benedict's centre has been declared permissible by the Church and requires closer study. It is an acceptable theological position but has not been absolutely proven yet.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: XavierSem on March 16, 2019, 01:35:15 AM
To answer some of the questions/objections directed at me, (sorry about the formatting; haven't got it right yet and haven't got the time to figure it out now)

Quote
How does one arrive at the state of grace before baptism?


How did all men from Adam to Christ for 5200 years obtain grace and justice? They received forgiveness through an Act of Contrition, or perfect love of God above all things, along with the explicit desire to do all the things He had commanded. There are countless examples of this in Sacred Scripture right from King David's tears of contrition, St. Mary Magdalene weeping at the feet of Christ (and the Lord says, her sins, which are many, are forgiven), St. Peter weeping after his denial etc even before Cornelius the Centurion received the Holy Spirit before his Baptism - a clear reference to Baptism by Desire of the Sacrament. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. (Luk 7:47)


Quote
Do you know what P[e]lagianism is?

Yes. Pelagius was a British monk who believed human nature without grace could perform meritorious actions, which is heretical. Baptism of Desire is not a natural act, but a supernatural grace which God gives for the forgiveness of sins. I advise everyone to read the article which is posted. St. Augustine compares justification to conception and perseverance to birth.


Quote
Please note that Baptism of Desire is NOT the Sacrament of Baptism.

Nobody said it was. Baptism of Desire may be a precursor to the Sacrament of Baptism, though, as it was for Cornelius.

The Lord Jesus Himself said to St. Catherine of Sienna, "St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..." From: http://baptismofdesire.com/





Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 16, 2019, 02:44:51 AM
With all due respect sir,



How did all men from Adam to Christ for 5200 years obtain grace and justice?

First of all, you shouldn't use your own personal exegesis to over turn the literal meanings of defined dogma. To do so is to deny the intentionality of language which means all defined truth needs further clarification in order to be held as true which robs it (Truth) and the speaker of it (the Magisterium) of authority and gives it (the authority) to the usurping "Pharisees" who presume to know better. Be very careful there young man, what I'm speaking of is condemned by pope Saint Pius the X in Lamentabili (  The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing. Condemned! ). On the contrary we must believe that when the Council of Trent defines that the only remedy for Original Sin is the Sacrament of Baptism in the form of the Church the case is closed. There is no forgiveness of Original Sin or sanctifying grace without Baptism. Actual grace only, which was the case of Cornelius who in fact still required Baptism.

Secondly, they didn't. They all went to Hell and waited for Jesus to go there and grant them Justification and then they still waited there to follow Him to heaven, yes even the Good Thief.





As for Cornelius, well he is as far removed from the Church as any non-Christian will ever be. He was separated geographically by a dangerous multiple day journey, he had no knowledge of the Catholic church or anyone who could lead him to the truth, and worse of all, St. Peter probably would not converse with him much less enter his home or initiate him into the church as St. Peter (and consequently the Church following Peter’s direction) would consider that “casting pearls before swine.” Cornelius was a religious man who had a fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of faith; he practiced natural virtue and was given grace from God including the gift of tongues as an external manifestation to Peter of God’s grace in Cornelius. Cornelius cooperated with the prevenient grace of God and moved his will to do what was necessary for his salvation. Miracles ensued which led to his evangelization and baptism. The obvious lesson from this story, believed by the early church, is that the Church is universal, but also learned here is that physical circumstances cannot impede Divine Providence or interdict the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.

How about that pious story of a Saint. We can no more overturn defined dogma with those than we can with our own interpretation of Holy Scripture.

I hope I have helped,


Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 16, 2019, 04:33:39 AM
Stubborn,

For agreeing with Karam? Fr. Feeney said he agreed with Karam.

DR
No, for the article saying: "...baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled . . ."

I am sure that Fr. Feeney never agreed with this because this would have been his "pinch of incense". 
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 16, 2019, 04:50:20 AM
What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.
Almost the same difference. Yes, Trent's catechism is also talking about a person still alive, the difference is that Christ's words let us know that for the women, there can be no doubt that they went away in the state of grace and righteousness.

The Catechism otoh, stops short of any such certainty, rather it says that by the intention to receive, we only put ourselves in the way ("avail") of grace and righteousness.

So by Christ's words we are certain they were in grace and righteousness, whereas by Trent's teaching, the only thing for certain, is that the intention puts us in a position to receive grace and righteousness, not salvation. Which is to say that the intention does not guarantee grace and righteousness at all, let alone salvation. Yet regardless of all this, the BODers insist on saying this passage from the catechism proves the Church teaches a BOD.  

 

 


Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: XavierSem on March 16, 2019, 08:04:53 AM
Dear JoeZ, it's not my interpretation, friend, I can show you several approved commentaries that exegete the text in the same manner.

Fr. Haydock, Fr. Lapide etc will tell you that St. Magdalene, King David, St. Peter, Cornelius etc received forgiveness through Contrition.

Can you show me a source that confirms your opinion? Please see Haydock on Cornelius here:
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml

Also, the booklet entitled "Perfect Contrition: The Golden Key to Paradise [including for all of us(!)]":
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml

"III. IS IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE AN ACT OF PERFECT CONTRITION? No doubt, it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect Contrition than an Imperfect one, which suffices when we go to Confession. But still, there is no one who, if he sincerely wishes it, cannot, with the grace of God, make an act of Perfect Contrition. Sorrow is in the will, not in the senses or feelings. All that is needed is that we repent because we love God above everything else; that is all. True it is that Perfect Contrition has its degrees, but it is none the less perfect because it does not reach the intensity and sublimity of the sorrow of St. Peter, of St. Mary Magdalene, or of St. Aloysius. Such a degree is very desirable, but is by no means necessary. A lesser degree, but, provided it proceeds from the love of God, and not through fear of His punishments, is quite sufficient. And it is very consoling to remember that for the 4000 years before the coming of Christ the only means sinners had of obtaining pardon was this same Perfect Contrition. There was no Sacrament of Penance in those days. Even today for thousands-aye, for millions-of pagans, of non-Catholics, and of Catholics, too, who have no time to call a priest to their bedside, the only means of pardon and salvation is an act of Perfect Contrition."

Many "traditionalists" (not speaking of you, dear Joe) have the wrong spirit today. It's no more about the salvation of souls, which is to be the supreme law even of the Church (Suprema Lex Salus Animarum, it is said in Canon Law) and the raison d'etre of man on this earth. To some so called traditionalists, its all about condemning others and closing the gates of heaven to them, while justifying oneself, and hoping to go to heaven like that. God has said through His Saints, "In the evening of life, we will all be judged by our love". Perfect Contrition united to the desire of the sacraments and the will to do all that God wills is not just a means to be applied once at the end of life a few minutes before Water Baptism. It is a means of forgiveness throughout life, from the first moment of reason till last breath. Everyone can obtain forgiveness and justification even every day through it, because God's Grace makes that possible to all.

Quote
They all went to Hell and waited for Jesus to go there and grant them Justification and then they still waited there to follow Him to heaven, yes even the Good Thief.

No, the just went to Abraham's bosom or limbo, like Lazarus, and the wicked went to hell, like Dives. if there was no difference in the state of all who descended, then either they would never have been able to be saved, or even the unjust would have been saved, which is wrong. St. Thomas explains: there is original sin as it affects the person and as it affects human nature; on the part of each individual person, it was necessary for it to be remitted by contrition and the desire to do God's Will. On the part of human nature, it was only remitted after Christ's Passion, as it were, by the shed blood of Christ, in anticipation of which Christ had already forgiven personal sins, to those who sincerely repented with contrition and sorrow for their sins. After His Passion, He opened Heaven to them, but not to all.

Is it possible He even baptized them? Judge for yourself. Here's the text in the Gospel of Nicodemus, "only three days were allowed to us who have risen from the dead to celebrate in Jerusalem the passover of the Lord, with our living relations, for an evidence of the resurrection of Christ the Lord: and we have been baptized in the holy river of Jordan, receiving each of us white robes. And after three days, when we had celebrated the passover of the Lord, all who rose again along with us were snatched up into the clouds, and taken across the Jordan, and were no longer seen by any one."http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/08072b.htm

This is why I think St. Augustine's opinion is quite possible. But St. Augustine is not saying what you are saying, which seems mistaken. If everybody died unjustified, everyone before Christ would have descended into hell of the damned and remained there.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 16, 2019, 08:25:44 AM
To answer some of the questions/objections directed at me, (sorry about the formatting; haven't got it right yet and haven't got the time to figure it out now)


How did all men from Adam to Christ for 5200 years obtain grace and justice? They received forgiveness through an Act of Contrition, or perfect love of God above all things, along with the explicit desire to do all the things He had commanded. There are countless examples of this in Sacred Scripture right from King David's tears of contrition, St. Mary Magdalene weeping at the feet of Christ (and the Lord says, her sins, which are many, are forgiven), St. Peter weeping after his denial etc even before Cornelius the Centurion received the Holy Spirit before his Baptism - a clear reference to Baptism by Desire of the Sacrament. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. (Luk 7:47)


. . .

Yes, Xavier, but the Council of Trent in its Session VI on justification says this:

Quote
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.

Does this not directly and clearly say that something has changed "since the promulgation of the Gospel" as to the manner of justification? It sure does. It says that now, in the age of the Catholic Church and the full revelation and promulgation by Her of the Gospel of Our Lord, justification "cannot be effected" without the sacrament, or the desire for it. The sacrament of baptism is now necessary for justification either in re or in votum. Your men "from Adam to Christ" were justified before the promulgation of the Gospel, not "since."

God changed the game my friend, and now there is no salvation outside the Church, or at least without an explicit desire for the sacrament - without which justification "cannot be effected." I understand that the latter part - the necessity of an explicit desire, is my theological opinion. But it fits with the language of the Council, Session VI, Chapter IV, and I've never heard anyone deal with this language in Trent adequately so as to explain how the justification before Christ of the men "from Adam to Christ for 5200" years - via contrition and an act of love and desire to do God's will, an "implicit" desire for baptism - can avail now after the Gospel's promulgation when Trent says things have now changed.

What changed since the promulgation of the Gospel such that now it "cannot be effected" without the sacrament of baptism or the desire "thereof"?

Perhaps you can explain that where others haven't.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: XavierSem on March 16, 2019, 08:29:52 AM
Hi DecemRationis. Quick reply. Yes, I agree as far as I understood. After the promulgation of the Gospel, things changed because we now need explicit Catholic Faith in at least the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Word/Son of God for salvation, as the Creed of St. Athanasius teaches us, for salvation; it is possible God may also give Baptism itself to all He has justified by BOD. Have to run now. 

Even the ancient OT patriarchs were all waiting for redemption only through Christ, and had to believe in Him to go to Heaven.

God bless. Will get back later.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: forlorn on March 16, 2019, 10:35:44 AM

Quote
Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the Sacrament of the Mediator."
This quote completely refutes BOD.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 17, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
Dear JoeZ, it's not my interpretation, friend, I can show you several approved commentaries that exegete the text in the same manner. Wether I meant you singly or you plural (as in any who hold the same) is irrelevant to the salient point. My argument is that the literal meaning of the defined dogma I cited excludes forgiveness of Original Sin and does not allow sanctifying grace in the unbaptized. No qualification, pious sounding story, or ill-used exegesis can unseat what the Church's Magesterium has defined.

Fr. Haydock, Fr. Lapide etc will tell you that St. Magdalene, King David, St. Peter, Cornelius etc received forgiveness through Contrition. Forgiveness of actual sin? I'll defer to them and concede the point.

Can you show me a source that confirms your opinion? Please see Haydock on Cornelius here:
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml Thank you for the link. I read through this and it supports my postition. 

Also, the booklet entitled "Perfect Contrition: The Golden Key to Paradise [including for all of us(!)]":
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml As far as we know, the perfect act of contrition affects only those on their way to the confessional. To apply it to the unbaptised does not follow. 

"III. IS IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE AN ACT OF PERFECT CONTRITION? No doubt, it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect Contrition than an Imperfect one, which suffices when we go to Confession. But still, there is no one who, if he sincerely wishes it, cannot, with the grace of God, make an act of Perfect Contrition. Sorrow is in the will, not in the senses or feelings. All that is needed is that we repent because we love God above everything else; that is all. True it is that Perfect Contrition has its degrees, but it is none the less perfect because it does not reach the intensity and sublimity of the sorrow of St. Peter, of St. Mary Magdalene, or of St. Aloysius. Such a degree is very desirable, but is by no means necessary. A lesser degree, but, provided it proceeds from the love of God, and not through fear of His punishments, is quite sufficient. And it is very consoling to remember that for the 4000 years before the coming of Christ the only means sinners had of obtaining pardon was this same Perfect Contrition. There was no Sacrament of Penance in those days. Even today for thousands-aye, for millions-of pagans, of non-Catholics, and of Catholics, too, who have no time to call a priest to their bedside, the only means of pardon and salvation is an act of Perfect Contrition."

Many "traditionalists" (not speaking of you, dear Joe) have the wrong spirit today. It's no more about the salvation of souls, which is to be the supreme law even of the Church (Suprema Lex Salus Animarum, it is said in Canon Law) and the raison d'etre of man on this earth. To some so called traditionalists, its all about condemning others and closing the gates of heaven to them, while justifying oneself, and hoping to go to heaven like that. God has said through His Saints, "In the evening of life, we will all be judged by our love". Perfect Contrition united to the desire of the sacraments and the will to do all that God wills is not just a means to be applied once at the end of life a few minutes before Water Baptism. It is a means of forgiveness throughout life, from the first moment of reason till last breath. Everyone can obtain forgiveness and justification even every day through it, because God's Grace makes that possible to all.

No, the just went to Abraham's bosom or limbo, like Lazarus, and the wicked went to hell, like Dives. if there was no difference in the state of all who descended, then either they would never have been able to be saved, or even the unjust would have been saved, which is wrong. St. Thomas explains: there is original sin as it affects the person and as it affects human nature; on the part of each individual person, it was necessary for it to be remitted by contrition and the desire to do God's Will. On the part of human nature, it was only remitted after Christ's Passion, as it were, by the shed blood of Christ, in anticipation of which Christ had already forgiven personal sins, to those who sincerely repented with contrition and sorrow for their sins. After His Passion, He opened Heaven to them, but not to all. We are in a semantic disagreement here. The Limbo of the Just is part of Hell. Its not the Lake of Fire part but it is beneath the Earth, as in down and not up.

Is it possible He even baptized them? Judge for yourself. Here's the text in the Gospel of Nicodemus, "only three days were allowed to us who have risen from the dead to celebrate in Jerusalem the passover of the Lord, with our living relations, for an evidence of the resurrection of Christ the Lord: and we have been baptized in the holy river of Jordan, receiving each of us white robes. And after three days, when we had celebrated the passover of the Lord, all who rose again along with us were snatched up into the clouds, and taken across the Jordan, and were no longer seen by any one."http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/08072b.htm A theory I hold myself.

This is why I think St. Augustine's opinion is quite possible. But St. Augustine is not saying what you are saying, which seems mistaken. If everybody died unjustified, everyone before Christ would have descended into hell of the damned and remained there.
My comments are in red.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: JoeZ on March 17, 2019, 11:10:29 AM
This quote completely refutes BOD.
This.
And ironically it is from the very Saint that almost all BOD theories today find their root. People don't care that he held BOD and then clearly repented of it and then wrote like the quote above.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: MarylandTrad on March 17, 2019, 02:08:38 PM
I wondered if the SBC, or one/some of their groups who went under conciliar church rule, were going to fold. Brother Andre and whoever is with him on this, is on their own. By that I mean they should disavow Fr. Feeney as their founder and go create their own community somewhere else and call it something else - iow, be outwardly, upfront honest.

The most obvious of all possible points *against* using Trent's Catechism to prove Trent taught a BOD, is that it says "grace and righteousness", which can only apply to the living, whereas "salvation" can only apply to the dead, this should be obvious to all who read that passage honestly from the catechism.

Obviously one can only attain salvation after death. Until death, i.e. whilst we live, we all strive to be in the state of grace and righteousness, which are attributes of the living, and also especially the dying, but definitely not the dead.

Know what I mean?


Stubborn, Br. Andre and the SBC Richmond still confess one baptism for the remission of sins and teach that the sacrament is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means. Karam's article was put on the SBC's website long before the Center received approval from their local ordinary to have a resident priest. I don't see how Br. Andre referencing it is proof that the Center has folded. It is an article of great historical interest being that it was explicitly referenced in the 1949 Holy Office Letter condemning the Center. It shows that the Holy Office was condemning the Center not for rejecting "baptism of desire" as many falsely say, but for upholding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the sense that the dogma has been infallibly defined.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: MarylandTrad on March 17, 2019, 03:40:45 PM
To answer some of the questions/objections directed at me, (sorry about the formatting; haven't got it right yet and haven't got the time to figure it out now)


How did all men from Adam to Christ for 5200 years obtain grace and justice? They received forgiveness through an Act of Contrition, or perfect love of God above all things, along with the explicit desire to do all the things He had commanded. There are countless examples of this in Sacred Scripture right from King David's tears of contrition, St. Mary Magdalene weeping at the feet of Christ (and the Lord says, her sins, which are many, are forgiven), St. Peter weeping after his denial etc even before Cornelius the Centurion received the Holy Spirit before his Baptism - a clear reference to Baptism by Desire of the Sacrament. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. (Luk 7:47)


Yes. Pelagius was a British monk who believed human nature without grace could perform meritorious actions, which is heretical. Baptism of Desire is not a natural act, but a supernatural grace which God gives for the forgiveness of sins. I advise everyone to read the article which is posted. St. Augustine compares justification to conception and perseverance to birth.


Nobody said it was. Baptism of Desire may be a precursor to the Sacrament of Baptism, though, as it was for Cornelius.

The Lord Jesus Himself said to St. Catherine of Sienna, "St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century): Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..." From: http://baptismofdesire.com/

In other writings attributed to St. Catherine of Sienna it is claimed that the Blessed Virgin appeared to the saint and told her that she was not immaculately conceived. St. Catherine's writings were obviously tampered with by over zealous Dominicans to make it appear as if heaven was endorsing all of St. Thomas' speculations. Pope Benedict XIV wrote about this very briefly in his "On Heroic Virtue."
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 17, 2019, 04:02:44 PM
Yes, Xavier, but the Council of Trent in its Session VI on justification says this:

Does this not directly and clearly say that something has changed "since the promulgation of the Gospel" as to the manner of justification? It sure does. It says that now, in the age of the Catholic Church and the full revelation and promulgation by Her of the Gospel of Our Lord, justification "cannot be effected" without the sacrament, or the desire for it. The sacrament of baptism is now necessary for justification either in re or in votum. Your men "from Adam to Christ" were justified before the promulgation of the Gospel, not "since."

God changed the game my friend, and now there is no salvation outside the Church, or at least without an explicit desire for the sacrament - without which justification "cannot be effected." I understand that the latter part - the necessity of an explicit desire, is my theological opinion. But it fits with the language of the Council, Session VI, Chapter IV, and I've never heard anyone deal with this language in Trent adequately so as to explain how the justification before Christ of the men "from Adam to Christ for 5200" years - via contrition and an act of love and desire to do God's will, an "implicit" desire for baptism - can avail now after the Gospel's promulgation when Trent says things have now changed.

What changed since the promulgation of the Gospel such that now it "cannot be effected" without the sacrament of baptism or the desire "thereof"?

Perhaps you can explain that where others haven't.
As Ladislaus pointed out many moons ago, the bolded is false because if it were true, then the sacrament could be effected even while the one who receives the sacrament, does so while wholly rejecting it or *without* desiring it. That's just the simple truth if the translation cannot occur without the sacrament or the desire thereof, then the justification occurs whether one receives the sacrament while desiring to be baptized or desiring not to be baptized.

As Trent's catechism says:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

So my question is this: Can this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected, with the laver of regeneration, but not the desire thereof? 

If you answer, "no", then you are in agreement with what is actually taught in both the Council of Trent, and Trent's catechism.


"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."

In this instance, "or" means "and".
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Stubborn on March 17, 2019, 04:04:30 PM

Stubborn, Br. Andre and the SBC Richmond still confess one baptism for the remission of sins and teach that the sacrament is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means. Karam's article was put on the SBC's website long before the Center received approval from their local ordinary to have a resident priest. I don't see how Br. Andre referencing it is proof that the Center has folded. It is an article of great historical interest being that it was explicitly referenced in the 1949 Holy Office Letter condemning the Center. It shows that the Holy Office was condemning the Center not for rejecting "baptism of desire" as many falsely say, but for upholding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the sense that the dogma has been infallibly defined.
Thanks MarylandTrad.
I wrongfully read it that SBC had caved.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: XavierSem on March 18, 2019, 01:35:26 AM
Quote from: JoeZ
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml) Thank you for the link. I read through this and it supports my postition.

JoeZ, this is Fr. Haydock's exegesis of verse 47, "Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. S. Aug. sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4." Does Fr. H believe no one who has charity or contrition and the desire of the Sacraments can receive justification?

Quote
Also, the booklet entitled "Perfect Contrition: The Golden Key to Paradise [including for all of us(!)]":
Quote
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml) As far as we know, the perfect act of contrition affects only those on their way to the confessional. To apply it to the unbaptised does not follow.
Fr. Lehmkuhl disagrees and that book explains it fairly well. But if you still disagree, how do you explain what Pope St. Pius X said "an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." That's fairly straightforward again, and as others have mentioned, the Baltimore Catechism taught the same; Pope Leo XIII approved it.

There's really no doubt about Baptism of Desire and to focus on it confuses the issue for many; Fr. Feeney's final position appears to be, "there is no one about to die in the state of grace to whom God cannot provide Baptism, and indeed Baptism of Water". That also appears to be St. Augustine's final position on the issue. At any rate, this is explicitly what St. Benedict's Centre believes today. The Magisterium has declared it to be permissible to believe that. SBC explains they don't deny anyone dying in grace will be saved.

It may be better to ask, Will everyone who receives Justification through Baptism of Desire, also receive the Sacrament of Baptism, as was the case with Cornelius above: St. Thomas says on Cornelius, "Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2; III:68:2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." (Tertia Pars, Q.69,A.5)

There is also St. Ambrose: http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/09/23/st-ambrose-on-the-baptism-of-desire/ "Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace? ... (56) Offer the holy mysteries with your hands, with devoted love let us ask for his repose. Offer the heavenly sacraments, let us accompany the soul of our son with our oblations. ‘Lift up with me, O people, your hands to the holy place’ (Psalm 133(134):2), so that at least through this service we may repay him for his deserts. Not with flowers shall I sprinkle his grave, but I shall bedew his spirit with the odor of Christ. Let others scatter lilies in basketfuls. Christ is our lily, and with this lily I shall bless his remains, with this I shall recommend for his favor."

These are the two authorities Pope Innocent III relied on, "Apostolicam: 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"

Fr. Feeney was reconciled merely upon professing the Athanasian Creed. Pope St. Pius X also taught the necessity of the Catholic Faith. God will bring pagans who sincerely seek the Truth to Christ in ways known to Him. Fr. Mueller taught this in an approved Catechism also. Those who see this do not need to begin by arguing almost every Catechism the Church has ever approved.

It cannot be doubted that God will Provide for all His Elect. If you want to speculate there was an invisible water Baptism for Valentian etc, that is a permissible opinion. But Baptism of Desire is not as such debatable because the Church has pronounced on it. God bless.
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Chrysostom on March 18, 2019, 02:41:49 AM
JoeZ, this is Fr. Haydock's exegesis of verse 47, "Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. S. Aug. sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4." Does Fr. H believe no one who has charity or contrition and the desire of the Sacraments can receive justification?
Fr. Lehmkuhl disagrees and that book explains it fairly well. But if you still disagree, how do you explain what Pope St. Pius X said "an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." That's fairly straightforward again, and as others have mentioned, the Baltimore Catechism taught the same; Pope Leo XIII approved it.

There's really no doubt about Baptism of Desire and to focus on it confuses the issue for many; Fr. Feeney's final position appears to be, "there is no one about to die in the state of grace to whom God cannot provide Baptism, and indeed Baptism of Water". That also appears to be St. Augustine's final position on the issue. At any rate, this is explicitly what St. Benedict's Centre believes today. The Magisterium has declared it to be permissible to believe that. SBC explains they don't deny anyone dying in grace will be saved.

It may be better to ask, Will everyone who receives Justification through Baptism of Desire, also receive the Sacrament of Baptism, as was the case with Cornelius above: St. Thomas says on Cornelius, "Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2; III:68:2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." (Tertia Pars, Q.69,A.5)

There is also St. Ambrose: http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/09/23/st-ambrose-on-the-baptism-of-desire/ "Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace? ... (56) Offer the holy mysteries with your hands, with devoted love let us ask for his repose. Offer the heavenly sacraments, let us accompany the soul of our son with our oblations. ‘Lift up with me, O people, your hands to the holy place’ (Psalm 133(134):2), so that at least through this service we may repay him for his deserts. Not with flowers shall I sprinkle his grave, but I shall bedew his spirit with the odor of Christ. Let others scatter lilies in basketfuls. Christ is our lily, and with this lily I shall bless his remains, with this I shall recommend for his favor."

These are the two authorities Pope Innocent III relied on, "Apostolicam: 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"

Fr. Feeney was reconciled merely upon professing the Athanasian Creed. Pope St. Pius X also taught the necessity of the Catholic Faith. God will bring pagans who sincerely seek the Truth to Christ in ways known to Him. Fr. Mueller taught this in an approved Catechism also. Those who see this do not need to begin by arguing almost every Catechism the Church has ever approved.

It cannot be doubted that God will Provide for all His Elect. If you want to speculate there was an invisible water Baptism for Valentian etc, that is a permissible opinion. But Baptism of Desire is not as such debatable because the Church has pronounced on it. God bless.
There is only one baptism and this is the sacrament of water and the holy ghost which all men must receive in order to go to heaven. If you want to call the extraordinary reception of this sacrament baptism of desire or blood (when Angels often provide the form) then OK, but if you dilineate these terms as something different to the water baptism then this is inexcusable heresy.
No amount of legalism will get around the fact that except a man be born again of water and the holy ghost he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: DecemRationis on March 18, 2019, 04:11:48 PM
Hi DecemRationis. Quick reply. Yes, I agree as far as I understood. After the promulgation of the Gospel, things changed because we now need explicit Catholic Faith in at least the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Word/Son of God for salvation, as the Creed of St. Athanasius teaches us, for salvation; it is possible God may also give Baptism itself to all He has justified by BOD. Have to run now.

Even the ancient OT patriarchs were all waiting for redemption only through Christ, and had to believe in Him to go to Heaven.

God bless. Will get back later.

Hi, Xavier. I agree that explicit Catholic faith is required now. 

However, the Council specifically indicates a change in the manner of justification since the promulgation of the Gospel and doesn't say, "now you must have the Catholic faith," but then says now you must have "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof." 

You could argue that there is an implicit desire for baptism in one having a Catholic faith in the Trinity and Incarnation (Christ), and that therefore the "desire thereof" is referencing someone with the Catholic faith in Christ but not yet baptized (even without knowledge of baptism in the inchoate state of his faith). Interesting. 

But the Catechism of Trent elaborates on the referenced "desire thereof" in my view, and it's a repentant catechumen's desire for baptism which he's preparing for. 

DR
Title: Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 18, 2019, 05:12:32 PM
The doctrines defined at Trent, which are necessary for salvation, were gradually watered down decade after decade after decade, from the 1500s til the 1900s, when V2 happened.  Even the modernists proclaim that V2 was "anti-Trent".  It's no secret that the devil and his Christ-hating minions hate the doctrine of exclusive salvation because it is contrary to their desired-for one-world religion, with its tower-of-babel/freemasonic ideals of "liberty", "diversity" and "inclusivity"...(i.e. the freemasonic ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity).  These 3 principles are contrary to the Catholic principle's of "Divine Law, Church Authority and Primacy of Truth".

BOD is a watering down of EENS.  The only way that it's possible for BOD to provide justification (i.e. state of grace) is how Trent inferred:  a Catechumen dies on his way to receive baptism.  You can quote St Thomas and St Alphonsus all you want but Trent is so much larger in importance than them, that their opinions are irrelevant.