Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?  (Read 20641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #45 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

Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #46 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.



Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #47 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.  

Offline JoeZ

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #48 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.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Do you agree with St. Benedict's Centre on both BOD and EENS?
« Reply #49 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.