Author Topic: Does BOD proved the grace of baptism? (Read 10924 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #75 on:** July 05, 2014, 05:45:03 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Stubborn
FYI, no one will ever get to heaven if they do not first receive the sacrament of baptism before they die.

Wrong.

No, you are wrong. The Council of Trent decreed that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation.

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Stubborn
This is true regardless of whatever bazaar and ridiculous "impossible" circuмstances you want to invent to make exceptions to that truth.

False.

No, you are wrong. You cannot possibly invent a situation in your wildest hallucinations that could prevent God from providing the sacrament to one who truly desires it.

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Stubborn
Far as you are concerned, the mysterium fidei thread is a mockery started by another despiser of the sacraments like you, since neither of you even believe the sacraments are necessary at all, please do not further demonstrate your hypocrisy by seeming concerned about validity of the Holy Eucharist while you preach salvation is rewarded via No Sacrament At All anyway.

Where do you get the idea that bod/bob supplying for water baptism in extreme cases means that the Sacraments are not necessary at all???????

Per Trent, the sacrament is not optional, that is, it is necessary unto salvation. There is no exception, not any exception - except the one you make up then say that exception is a part of Church teaching.

There is never an extreme case where a sincere person seeking to be baptized will die without the sacrament. If you do not believe that then you have no faith.

God arranged for you to be baptized - didn't He? By the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to be baptized to receive the sacrament before they die - "extreme cases" or not. There are no "extreme cases" to God and there is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children.

God is not bound by the constraints of His own laws, nor is He bound to snatch away a sincere person who desires to enter the Church through the sacrament before providing the sacrament to that person.

The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years. - Fr. Wathen

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Are you one of those blockheads who believes an exception does away with the norm?

So if somebody is exempt from taking a math test, do you throw up your arms and declare that now everybody needs to be exempt from the test?

No, but you are one of those blockheads who invents your own exceptions to defined dogma, then ends up promoting that your exception is the norm.

Stop using the false title of a "Baptism of Desire". A BOD is not a sacrament, everyone agrees with this.

A BOD is No Sacrament At All (NSAA). You would do well to start calling it what it really is, namely, NSAA.

You're preaching that salvation is rewarded via a BOD is preaching that salvation is rewarded via NSAA - which directly contradicts the canons and decrees of Trent - which makes it heresy.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Notice that the above canon leaves no room for your made up exception of "extreme cases". We are not permitted to add exceptions to defined dogma.

Nishant · « **Reply #76 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:04:45 AM »

To be fair, this is perhaps the best argument the Dimonds have got. Though that isn't really saying very much. And this specious sophistry has been answered before, it really amounts to saying that if all the effects of a sacrament received in re are not also received when that sacrament is received in voto (which is clearly false for both penance and the Eucharist), then that sacrament cannot be received in voto. The truth is the principal sacramental effect of baptism - which is justification - can be received in voto.

Now, Trent clearly teaches first of all that the sacrament of penance received in desire effects the grace of justification.

Quote

the sacramental confession of those sins, at least in desire ... satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment

So whether penance is received in re or in voto, the eternal punishment is remitted, and some temporal punishment, depending on the disposition of the penitent and the intensity with which God is loved, will remain. And this shows that it is no way intrinsic to being the state of justification that the entire temporal punishment needs be remitted.

Now, when the sacrament of baptism is received in act i.e. in re, one obtains the remission of all temporal punishment also, because of the work of Christ in the sacrament. This is comparable to how attrition suffices in teh confessional, but contrition is necessary outside it, because the sacrament has an ex opere operato effect. The same is true for the Eucharist received in voto as opposed to in re, in a spiritual communion, all the superabundant fruits and secondary effects of sacramental Communion are not present, though the principal one is.

Each of the passages wrested by the Dimonds, in contrast, when read in their context, can be shown to be treating the reception of baptism in re. Baptism in voto does not supply all the effects of baptism, by no means, but it supplies the principal grace of baptism, which is justification, as is evident in the main passage below.

Now, secondly Trent teaches that the sacraments, in the plural, or the desire of them, again in the plural (evident in the Latin) effect the grace of justification. Moreover, it is very clear in the canon (from its condemnation of the Protestant heresy of faith alone, which they understood to refer to first justification) that Trent is speaking of baptism primarily, and penance only secondarily, when it teaches that the grace of justification cannot be obtained without the sacraments or without the desire of them.

Quote

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

So the very canon most frequently wrested by the Dimondites and Feeneyites is the canon that explains that the necessity of the sacraments must be understood as a necessity in fact or in desire - that no one receives the grace of justification without the sacraments or without the desire thereof.

And then the third and most direct proof, again using the same word voto to show how baptism and justification can be received in desire, "And this translation [i.e. to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"

This teaching is also contained in the Roman Catechism, showing the mind and intent of the Tridentine Fathers and clearly precluding all and each of the Feeneyite novelties. The Catechism clearly explains it is speaking for adults of the exact same danger of dying and going to hell that it earlier treated in the case of infants, and for those for whom the reception of the "salutary waters" of the sacrament is rendered impossible through no fault of the person. Such a person can obtain grace and justice through his desire and intention, with repentance for past sins. The Catechism thus clearly teaches this person will die justified, and unlike the children, will not go to hell, however it alertly avoids saying they will go to heaven immediately. That is because those saved by baptism of desire will in general be saved only through purgatory.

In fact, Trent teaches that penance and baptism are both necessary for salvation in the same way - which can only mean a necessity in re or in voto. The Church and subsequent Popes have already infallibly declared this teaching, taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium post Trent, to be safe and irreformable - the sacraments are necessary for justification, and therefore for salvation, in re or in voto. This is true of Baptism, the gate and foundation of the sacraments, where the grace of justification is first received, and of Penance, the "second plank after shipwreck" where the selfsame grace of justification may by God's mercy be recovered. Dimondites who obstinately insist otherwise are only Pharisaical rigorists who attack the Church's approved teaching, and only condemn themselves.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #77 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:14:48 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Where do you get the idea that bod/bob supplying for water baptism in extreme cases means that the Sacraments are not necessary at all???????

Even the St. Pius X catechism teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. You have a faulty understanding of "necessity". In those extreme cases you are saying that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary at all. So the way you chracterize this necessity is that it's a necessity of precept or, as DP tried to claim, a relative necessity. That's NOT the teaching of the Church. DP suddenly fell silent after I quoted the St. Pius X Catechism as teaching the "absolute" (not "relative") necessity of Baptism.

I have laid this out at least a dozen times already. In order to avoid denying the teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, you have to say that people receive Baptism in voto and that with BoD the Sacrament of Baptism acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating through the votum. I don't know why this is so hard. But the BoDers continue to obstinately run around speaking in terms that reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. I would tolerate an opinion on BoD formulated as I stated above. But I will not tolerate all this heretical babble about how people can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism or this heretical babble about there being "exceptions" (thereby reducing the necessity to a necessity of precept).

If you want to maintain your stance on BoD, please at least do so without heretically denying dogmatic Church teaching and anathematizing yourself and doing harm to Catholic doctrine. Your heretical babble is tantamount to the very Protestant errors that Trent set out to condemn.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #78 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:19:01 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

To be fair, this is perhaps the best argument the Dimonds have got.

I find it impossible to refute. If I ever did come to accept the existence of BoD, I would have to state, contrary to the opinion of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, that those justified by BoD must also necessarily receive the remission of temporal punishment due to sin.

This is not an argument necessarily against BoD, just against one particular explanation for how BoD works.

I would also argue, contrary to the current prevailing BoD theorizing, that God also provides the Christian character and incorporates such people as members of the Church in some extraordinary way because I don't see how there can be any salvation outside of membership in the Church. I don't believe in the heretical invisible Church ecclesiology.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:26:05 AM »

Nishant, I don't buy that this argument can be limited only to the reception of Baptism in re. By the way, I appreciate your use of the terminology that people receive Baptism in voto, as per my previous post. At least it maintains the teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

It's taught de fide that there can be no justification without rebirth. Period. Then rebirth is defined as being put into a state where (as the term itself implies) there's nothing left that would prevent immediate entry into heaven. So the conclusion, proxima fidei, must be that there can be no such thing as a justification which does not remit all punishment due to sin. This cannot be refuted. Consequently, as I said, if I became convinced regarding the existence of BoD, I would have to say that BoD remits all temporal punishment due to sin and that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus got this wrong. I would also argue, contary to current BoD theorizing, that such people become members of the Church and receive the Christian character.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #80 on:** July 05, 2014, 10:55:13 AM »

By the way, I do not dismiss LIGHTLY the fact that BoD has become the pervasive opinion and that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus believed in it. That's an important consideration. I do not blow that off.

But, in the final analysis, that's ALL there is. I look at the history of the teaching. St. Augustine clearly floated it as a speculative opinion. "Having considered it over and over again, I find that ..." Then he retracted it. Then Innocent II / III admitted he was following St. Augustine on this point, despite his having retracted it, in saying that someone can be saved by "faith in the Sacrament". Which, as most BoDers don't see, is not even a correct formulation of BoD. There's a HUGE difference between having "faith in the Sacrament" vs. the votum for it. In fact, many people in the early Church very much believed in the Sacrament but deferred it due to a fear of losing their Baptismal innocence too soon or being unable to shake themselves from attachment to sin (as St. Augustine did for a while). People such as these would not have the votum for the Sacrament despite having "faith in the Sacrament." So the Innocent III letter is actually wrong just on this point. Innocent also taught in a similar letter that the the consecration at Mass is valid if the priest merely thinks the words of consecration. Most of the BoB Church Fathers interestingly REJECT the notion of BoD. At the end of the day you have several MORE Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than who accept it. St. Bernard then picked up the opinion and admitted that he wasn't sure of it but just accepted it based on the "authority" of St. Augustine ("whether I be right or wrong about this, I would rather be wrong with Augustine") Again, despite the fact that if you look at St. Augustine he was clearly floating a speculative opinion on the matter. St. Thomas picked it up from St. Augustine and St. Bernard. Then of course it spread like wildfire based on the authority of St. Thomas.

There's no indication whatsoever that, despite the fact that BoD was an extremely widely-held opinion, that it has ever been or could ever be elevated anything more than an opinion of speculative theology. Just because something is widely held doesn't make it dogma. Something has to be clearly widely-held as being de fide. So, for instance, many Catholics hold to the notion of Our Lady as being Co-Redemptorix, but that doesn't mean it's dogma. Really the only thing left is whether Trent taught it, and I have many weighty reasons for thinking that Trent did NOT intend to teach BoD.

So this is the status quaestionis regarding BoD as I see it.

Where I have problems is when BoD gets extended to people who do not explicitly have any supernatural faith, people who vaguely believe in a rewarder God. That undermines EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Period. End of story. EVERY quasi-authoritative citation in favor of BoD is explicitly limited to the case of catechumens. Until Suprema Haec which is essentially a Pelagian docuмent.

St. Augustine / St. Ambrose -- catechumens
Innocent II / III -- catechumen / "priest not baptized"
St. Robert Bellarmine -- catechumen
1917 Code of Canon Law -- catechumens

As Rahner himself put it, any notion of non-Baptismal membership in the Church involved the notion that catechumens were somehow already "Christian" and part of the visible Church. They enjoyed a quasi-canonical status and were signed with the sign of the cross, referred to as Christians though not "fideles". St. Robert Bellarmine tried to state that catechumens were somehow "in the vestibule" of the Church. But St. Robert was an extremely STRONG proponent of the visibility of the Catholic Church ... just felt that these catechumens were part of the visible Church even if they were outlying members.

Against BoD are some VERY STRONG dogmatic arguments. As I indicated the Church NEVER considered catechumens to be part of the "fideles", yet one EENS definition states that there's no salvation outside the Church of the "fideles" ("faithful"). Trent dogmatically taught that catechumens were NOT subject to the Roman Pontiff, and yet one EENS definition states that there can be no salvation without subjection to the Roman Pontiff. These IMO far outweigh any theological arguments FOR BoD. In fact, I have NEVER SEEN ANY theological ARGUMENTS in favor of BoD, syllogisms illustrating how it flows from Catholic dogma. You just find gratuitous assertions that it exists based on some perception of "authority". Then explanations after that assertion of how it works or doesn't work. Theologically I don't see it as anything other than being completely made up.

If anyone honestly examines the evidence, the case for BoD is EXTREMELY weak and rests solely in this notion that it's been widely accepted. But lots of things can become widely accepted without being true. Take Arianism for instance, or Vatican II. In order for the Church to have defected, however, the Church would have to essentially embrace HERESY. But in accepting BoD, at least the classical notion held by the prominent Doctors, there's no heresy involved per se. Consequently, there's no issue regarding the defection of the Church.

Why would God allows this false idea to spread far and wide? Because without it there couldn't be this modern final "End Times" testing of the faith. Most of the modern errors and the modern apostasy rests squarely in this idea of BoD, invisible Church ecclesiology, salvation by "good will" and "niceness". Without BoD none of this could have happened. God is using this as a test of faith in the End Times, a way to separate those who have the faith and believe in the Catholic Church, its necessity for salvation, and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, the True Incarnational Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, rather than the gnostic/Protestant/invisible/Pelagian mystical Church which can include pretty much anyone and therefore "dissolves Christ" (the descriptive phrase used by St. John about Antichrist).

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #81 on:** July 05, 2014, 11:44:11 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Stubborn
FYI, no one will ever get to heaven if they do not first receive the sacrament of baptism before they die.

Wrong.

No, you are wrong. The Council of Trent decreed that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation.

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Stubborn
This is true regardless of whatever bazaar and ridiculous "impossible" circuмstances you want to invent to make exceptions to that truth.

False.

No, you are wrong. You cannot possibly invent a situation in your wildest hallucinations that could prevent God from providing the sacrament to one who truly desires it.

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Stubborn
Far as you are concerned, the mysterium fidei thread is a mockery started by another despiser of the sacraments like you, since neither of you even believe the sacraments are necessary at all, please do not further demonstrate your hypocrisy by seeming concerned about validity of the Holy Eucharist while you preach salvation is rewarded via No Sacrament At All anyway.

Where do you get the idea that bod/bob supplying for water baptism in extreme cases means that the Sacraments are not necessary at all???????

Per Trent, the sacrament is not optional, that is, it is necessary unto salvation. There is no exception, not any exception - except the one you make up then say that exception is a part of Church teaching.

There is never an extreme case where a sincere person seeking to be baptized will die without the sacrament. If you do not believe that then you have no faith.

God arranged for you to be baptized - didn't He? By the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to be baptized to receive the sacrament before they die - "extreme cases" or not. There are no "extreme cases" to God and there is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children.

God is not bound by the constraints of His own laws, nor is He bound to snatch away a sincere person who desires to enter the Church through the sacrament before providing the sacrament to that person.

The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years. - Fr. Wathen

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Are you one of those blockheads who believes an exception does away with the norm?

So if somebody is exempt from taking a math test, do you throw up your arms and declare that now everybody needs to be exempt from the test?

No, but you are one of those blockheads who invents your own exceptions to defined dogma, then ends up promoting that your exception is the norm.

Stop using the false title of a "Baptism of Desire". A BOD is not a sacrament, everyone agrees with this.

A BOD is No Sacrament At All (NSAA). You would do well to start calling it what it really is, namely, NSAA.

You're preaching that salvation is rewarded via a BOD is preaching that salvation is rewarded via NSAA - which directly contradicts the canons and decrees of Trent - which makes it heresy.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Notice that the above canon leaves no room for your made up exception of "extreme cases". We are not permitted to add exceptions to defined dogma.

Gee.

Eat this:

Quote

Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564), which confirms the decrees of the Council of Trent, imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumes “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason for this prohibition, the Bull stated, was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private commentaries on and interpretations of the Tridentine decrees.

Simple 2+2 thing here:

- STUBBORN here engages in private commentaries on and interpretations of the Tridentine decrees, precisely what this Bull condemns, or more like, FEENEY did, then WATHEN, then the DIMONDS etc.

- STUBBORN here is a Wathenite and is simply repeating what he cooked up.

- Neither FEENEY, nor WATHEN, nor the DIMONDS, nor STUBBORN, ever had (have not), (will never have) the approval of the Holy See to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.

- ST. ALPHONSUS, and all the other Saints and Theologians after Trent, DID have the approval of the Holy See, and what they taught was the exact OPPOSITE of what the heretics Wathen & co. came up with.

That should be enough for an honest person.

But no, just wait and watch the monkey STUBBORN do the same old trick again.

Nishant · « **Reply #82 on:** July 05, 2014, 08:37:26 PM »

Dear Lad, thanks for your answer and your thoughts. Although I think your mistake is grave, still I believe you are mistaken in good faith. We'll come back to the history of BOD in a moment, let's start with Trent,

1. I'd like you to address this canon,

Quote

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Do you deny that Trent is here saying that the grace of justification can be received by the desire of the sacraments? It's very clear from the other canons as well, where Trent condemns the idea that justification can be received by faith alone, that Trent is speaking of baptism primarily here.

2. Your first premise I agree with, your second premise, I disagree with and your conclusion is not only worthy of being rejected but is absolutely upside down. Your claim "So the conclusion, proxima fidei, must be that there can be no such thing as a justification which does not remit all punishment due to sin" is word for word refuted here below, so I stand with the traditional teaching, and respectfully ask you to revise or rethink or at least reword your position accordingly.

Trent says,

Quote

If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

Will you retract your statement that "there can be no such thing as a justification which does not remit all punishment due to sin"?

It is not at all intrinsic to justification that all temporal punishment also be remitted, the canon clearly says and proves that.

The Dimondite mistake involves a wresting of the passage where Trent explains that those born again in Baptism itself receive the remission of all temporal punishment also, that passage uses the metaphor of being buried to describe actual Baptism. It is not speaking of Baptism of Desire. The canons above proves that the grace of justification can be received in desire, and that it is in no way intrinsic to the grace of justification that the entirety of the temporal punishment be blotted out. Trent also says "penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism" so that a lot of our co-operation, tears and labours is necessary in receiving this sacrament to obtain the complete remission of all debt of temporal punishment. Finally, the famous passage in Trent, speaks of justification not being able to be effected except by baptism or the desire thereof.

3. The Roman Catechism, which the Dimonds frankly admit contradicts their fanciful claims about what Trent supposedly defined, is another proof they are mistaken. The Fathers at the First Vatican Council authoritatively interpreted Pius IX's Encyclical with his consent as proof that some souls are saved without baptism in re, and therefore not without baptism in voto. They also prepared a dogmatic definition involving Baptism of Desire, and the agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that such was definable already means the doctrine is at least proxima de fide, even if the Pope did not proceed with the definition, as Pius XII said about the Assumption before he defined it, and would therefore be binding under pain of mortal sin. I'm sorry, Ladislaus, but I do not think personally that there is any scope at all for arguing against BOD from the period after Trent.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #83 on:** July 06, 2014, 07:25:42 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Dear Lad, thanks for your answer and your thoughts. Although I think your mistake is grave, still I believe you are mistaken in good faith. We'll come back to the history of BOD in a moment, let's start with Trent,

1. I'd like you to address this canon,
Quote
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Do you deny that Trent is here saying that the grace of justification can be received by the desire of the sacraments? It's very clear from the other canons as well, where Trent condemns the idea that justification can be received by faith alone, that Trent is speaking of baptism primarily here.

2. Your first premise I agree with, your second premise, I disagree with and your conclusion is not only worthy of being rejected but is absolutely upside down. Your claim "So the conclusion, proxima fidei, must be that there can be no such thing as a justification which does not remit all punishment due to sin" is word for word refuted here below, so I stand with the traditional teaching, and respectfully ask you to revise or rethink or at least reword your position accordingly.

Trent says,
Quote
If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

Will you retract your statement that "there can be no such thing as a justification which does not remit all punishment due to sin"?

It is not at all intrinsic to justification that all temporal punishment also be remitted, the canon clearly says and proves that.

The Dimondite mistake involves a wresting of the passage where Trent explains that those born again in Baptism itself receive the remission of all temporal punishment also, that passage uses the metaphor of being buried to describe actual Baptism. It is not speaking of Baptism of Desire. The canons above proves that the grace of justification can be received in desire, and that it is in no way intrinsic to the grace of justification that the entirety of the temporal punishment be blotted out. Trent also says "penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism" so that a lot of our co-operation, tears and labours is necessary in receiving this sacrament to obtain the complete remission of all debt of temporal punishment. Finally, the famous passage in Trent, speaks of justification not being able to be effected except by baptism or the desire thereof.

3. The Roman Catechism, which the Dimonds frankly admit contradicts their fanciful claims about what Trent supposedly defined, is another proof they are mistaken. The Fathers at the First Vatican Council authoritatively interpreted Pius IX's Encyclical with his consent as proof that some souls are saved without baptism in re, and therefore not without baptism in voto. They also prepared a dogmatic definition involving Baptism of Desire, and the agreement of the episcopate with the Pope that such was definable already means the doctrine is at least proxima de fide, even if the Pope did not proceed with the definition, as Pius XII said about the Assumption before he defined it, and would therefore be binding under pain of mortal sin. I'm sorry, Ladislaus, but I do not think personally that there is any scope at all for arguing against BOD from the period after Trent.

very good response and easy to understand now the case is closed again on this agenda and the intentions of this movie.

drew · « **Reply #84 on:** July 06, 2014, 10:27:38 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Council of Trent, Canon 4, On the Sacraments
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

So the very canon most frequently wrested by the Dimondites and Feeneyites is the canon that explains that the necessity of the sacraments must be understood as a necessity in fact or in desire - that no one receives the grace of justification without the sacraments or without the desire thereof.

And then the third and most direct proof, again using the same word voto to show how baptism and justification can be received in desire, "And this translation [i.e. to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"

This teaching is also contained in the Roman Catechism, showing the mind and intent of the Tridentine Fathers and clearly precluding all and each of the Feeneyite novelties. The Catechism clearly explains it is speaking for adults of the exact same danger of dying and going to hell that it earlier treated in the case of infants, and for those for whom the reception of the "salutary waters" of the sacrament is rendered impossible through no fault of the person. Such a person can obtain grace and justice through his desire and intention, with repentance for past sins. The Catechism thus clearly teaches this person will die justified, and unlike the children, will not go to hell, however it alertly avoids saying they will go to heaven immediately. That is because those saved by baptism of desire will in general be saved only through purgatory.

In fact, Trent teaches that penance and baptism are both necessary for salvation in the same way - which can only mean a necessity in re or in voto. The Church and subsequent Popes have already infallibly declared this teaching, taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium post Trent, to be safe and irreformable - the sacraments are necessary for justification, and therefore for salvation, in re or in voto. This is true of Baptism, the gate and foundation of the sacraments, where the grace of justification is first received, and of Penance, the "second plank after shipwreck" where the selfsame grace of justification may by God's mercy be recovered. Dimondites who obstinately insist otherwise are only Pharisaical rigorists who attack the Church's approved teaching, and only condemn themselves.

Nishant:

Trent did not teach, as you say, that "penance and baptism are both necessary for salvation in the same way - which can only mean a necessity in re or in voto." The Decree on Penance, which compares the desire for the sacrament of Penance to the desire for the sacrament of Baptism, says that the desire for Penance can be effective for "salvation" like the desire for Baptism can be effective for "regeneration." The desires are not alike in ends.

The distinction between salvation and justification is again dogmatically affirmed in the canon 4 on the sacraments. While the desire for the sacrament can produce justification, the sacrament are dogmatically affirmed as necessary for salvation The sacrament is the form and matter by definition. The authority for the belief that the desire of the sacraments can effect a state of justification is the same authority that declares that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. You, like Fr. Kramer, want to use one dogma to undermine another, to distort one truth and set it in opposition to another truth. In this very canon Fr. Kramer changed the words of the canon to make the second proposition serve as the "reason" for the first. He also changed the canon by adding the adverb, "morally" to modify the word "necessary" to change the necessity to one of precept. Every heresy can be characterized as a distortion of a revealed truth leading to the denial of another truth. This is no exception.

Fr. Feeney did not argue that the conjunction "or" in the second proposition of Canon 4 should be taken as inclusive and thus equivalent to conjunction "and." He taught that the desire for Baptism could produce a state of justification, but held the dogmatic truth affirmed in the first proposition that the sacraments are necessary for salvation must be held as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. When asked about the justified soul who dies without the sacrament of Baptism he simply answered that no one knows if such a soul exists and those who claim that they did where placing the laws of probability over the Providence of God.

Your claim that BOD is taught by the "ordinary and universal magisterium post Trent" is absurd. This is the same nonsense that Fr. Kramer repeatedly affirmed. It is absurd because "universal" refers to all times as well as all places. To simply say, "universal.... post Trent" is an oxymoron. The Church was not founded in the 16th century. BOD never had any general support until after the time of St. Thomas. Msgr. Joseph Fenton, in his article defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter says that salvation by explicit desire did not become the general teaching of the Church until the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine." He makes no claim that the doctrine is de fide. If it were a teaching of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" then Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not nor was he required to abjure any doctrinal error for the removal of his "excommunication." All of the communities he founded continue to teach and defend what Fr. Feeney taught and defended and they are in communion with their local ordinaries.

Furthermore, it is not as if the Fathers of the Church were silent on the question. It is rejected explicitly by several of them and ultimately defended by none. The Council of Braga explicitly forbade catechumens ecclesiastical burial and this was approved by Rome. Also, the very term BOD has no established definition even after Trent. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus differ in important essentials in their understanding of BOD. Even "Ambrose" has said in a previous post that the 1949 Holy Office Letter censored Fr. Feeney's "rejection of the doctrine of implicit BOD" when the Letter said nothing about BOD. Any term that lacks clarity of definition cannot be a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The meaning of the term by those who accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter, such as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, would be called heresy by Ss. Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus. Most SSPX formed priest make the same silly claim.

In the practical realm rejection of BOD has no adverse implications for any soul. If someone is "saved" by BOD he suffers no loss by others denying its possibility. On the other hand, if someone loses salvation because some BOD cleric neglected to provide the sacraments, then both will have a stiff penalty to pay for the cleric's negligence and dereliction of duty.

Which brings up the question why the matter is so important. It is because the BOD crowd ultimately seek to dissolve all dogma. You profess that the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney's theological defense of the dogma, EENS, to be an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. You have called Fr. Feeney a heretic and yet you have avoided defending the only docuмent that censors his doctrinal teaching. Fr. Feeney held the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be heretical which it most surely is.

You need to defend this Letter. Your past appeals to authority can only support a claim. It cannot prove anything unless the authority is the authority of God's revealed truth, that is, dogma. I do not believe that you or anyone else who accepts the doctrinal teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter can offer any principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. That is where BOD leads. You believe like Archbishop Lefebvre that any "good willed" Hindu as a Hindu who 'has an explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' can be united to the Church, justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, an heir to heaven, and obtain salvation. There is nothing more hypocritical than a BOD shill babbling about Trent while he ignores the general apostasy that he is just as responsible as any radical Modernist in causing. You end up denying that the sacraments are necessary for salvation either in re or in voto, whether explicit or implicit; denying that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation; and denying that being a subject of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. All these dogmas are cast aside for a Letter published by Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston. Absolutely no sense for proper pertinency, proportion, and weight of evidence.

Drew

Cantarella · « **Reply #85 on:** July 07, 2014, 12:27:10 AM »

Very appropiate

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #86 on:** July 07, 2014, 01:31:58 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Very appropiate

Sure sign of complete theological ignorance: mistaking the doctrines of bod/bob as Modernism and corruption of dogma.

You might as well condemn St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus as proto-Modernists.

But hey, doesn't your sect teach all religions are means of salvation?

Go over to Hindu Answers and stay there.

Stubborn · « **Reply #87 on:** July 07, 2014, 04:11:44 AM »

Quote from: drew

Nishant:

Trent did not teach, as you say, that "penance and baptism are both necessary for salvation in the same way - which can only mean a necessity in re or in voto." The Decree on Penance, which compares the desire for the sacrament of Penance to the desire for the sacrament of Baptism, says that the desire for Penance can be effective for "salvation" like the desire for Baptism can be effective for "regeneration." The desires are not alike in ends.

The distinction between salvation and justification is again dogmatically affirmed in the canon 4 on the sacraments. While the desire for the sacrament can produce justification, the sacrament are dogmatically affirmed as necessary for salvation The sacrament is the form and matter by definition. The authority for the belief that the desire of the sacraments can effect a state of justification is the same authority that declares that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. You, like Fr. Kramer, want to use one dogma to undermine another, to distort one truth and set it in opposition to another truth. In this very canon Fr. Kramer changed the words of the canon to make the second proposition serve as the "reason" for the first. He also changed the canon by adding the adverb, "morally" to modify the word "necessary" to change the necessity to one of precept. Every heresy can be characterized as a distortion of a revealed truth leading to the denial of another truth. This is no exception.

Fr. Feeney did not argue that the conjunction "or" in the second proposition of Canon 4 should be taken as inclusive and thus equivalent to conjunction "and." He taught that the desire for Baptism could produce a state of justification, but held the dogmatic truth affirmed in the first proposition that the sacraments are necessary for salvation must be held as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. When asked about the justified soul who dies without the sacrament of Baptism he simply answered that no one knows if such a soul exists and those who claim that they did where placing the laws of probability over the Providence of God.

Your claim that BOD is taught by the "ordinary and universal magisterium post Trent" is absurd. This is the same nonsense that Fr. Kramer repeatedly affirmed. It is absurd because "universal" refers to all times as well as all places. To simply say, "universal.... post Trent" is an oxymoron. The Church was not founded in the 16th century. BOD never had any general support until after the time of St. Thomas. Msgr. Joseph Fenton, in his article defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter says that salvation by explicit desire did not become the general teaching of the Church until the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine." He makes no claim that the doctrine is de fide. If it were a teaching of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" then Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not nor was he required to abjure any doctrinal error for the removal of his "excommunication." All of the communities he founded continue to teach and defend what Fr. Feeney taught and defended and they are in communion with their local ordinaries.

Furthermore, it is not as if the Fathers of the Church were silent on the question. It is rejected explicitly by several of them and ultimately defended by none. The Council of Braga explicitly forbade catechumens ecclesiastical burial and this was approved by Rome. Also, the very term BOD has no established definition even after Trent. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus differ in important essentials in their understanding of BOD. Even "Ambrose" has said in a previous post that the 1949 Holy Office Letter censored Fr. Feeney's "rejection of the doctrine of implicit BOD" when the Letter said nothing about BOD. Any term that lacks clarity of definition cannot be a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The meaning of the term by those who accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter, such as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, would be called heresy by Ss. Thomas, Bellarmine and Alphonsus. Most SSPX formed priest make the same silly claim.

In the practical realm rejection of BOD has no adverse implications for any soul. If someone is "saved" by BOD he suffers no loss by others denying its possibility. On the other hand, if someone loses salvation because some BOD cleric neglected to provide the sacraments, then both will have a stiff penalty to pay for the cleric's negligence and dereliction of duty.

Which brings up the question why the matter is so important. It is because the BOD crowd ultimately seek to dissolve all dogma. You profess that the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney's theological defense of the dogma, EENS, to be an orthodox exposition of Catholic doctrine. You have called Fr. Feeney a heretic and yet you have avoided defending the only docuмent that censors his doctrinal teaching. Fr. Feeney held the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be heretical which it most surely is.

You need to defend this Letter. Your past appeals to authority can only support a claim. It cannot prove anything unless the authority is the authority of God's revealed truth, that is, dogma. I do not believe that you or anyone else who accepts the doctrinal teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter can offer any principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. That is where BOD leads. You believe like Archbishop Lefebvre that any "good willed" Hindu as a Hindu who 'has an explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' can be united to the Church, justified, a temple of the Holy Ghost, an heir to heaven, and obtain salvation. There is nothing more hypocritical than a BOD shill babbling about Trent while he ignores the general apostasy that he is just as responsible as any radical Modernist in causing. You end up denying that the sacraments are necessary for salvation either in re or in voto, whether explicit or implicit; denying that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation; and denying that being a subject of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. All these dogmas are cast aside for a Letter published by Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston. Absolutely no sense for proper pertinency, proportion, and weight of evidence.

Drew

Great post Drew!

It boils down to what bowler said - the NSAAers are insane.

Nishant · « **Reply #88 on:** July 07, 2014, 08:11:00 AM »

Mr. Drew, I already posted a detailed defense of the Holy Office Letter, and of other matters relating to it, and of the infallible teaching of the Church after Trent, on another thread and I'm not going to enter into it here. This thread concerns the teaching of Trent.

1. I've asked you this before and you obstinately refuse to answer this simple question. That's because to do so would show that you are wrong.

Is a justified soul inside or outside the Church? Whichever answer you give, you either contradict Trent and dogma, or your own beliefs. It is heretical to say a justified soul is outside the Church. But if a justified soul, who has received baptism or penance in voto, has entered the Church, then nothing else is required for his salvation other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, as Trent dogmatically states.

Quote from: Denz 809

"we must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace [Rev. 14:13]), since Christ our Lord says: "If anyone shall drink of the water, that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever, but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting" [John 4:14]. Thus neither is "our own justice established as our own" from ourselves, nor is the justice of God [Rom. 10:3] "ignored" or repudiated; for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified [can. 10 and 11] through its inherence in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ

Hence all the justified will inherit eternal life and are considered to have truly merited it if they but depart this life in the grace and justice received in justification and it is most plainly declared that nothing is still wanting in them toward this end.

Your thesis that a man who dies justified will not ultimately go to heaven, but that something beside this is necessary, is heretical.

2. In case you now wish to follow the Dimonds and heretically deny that a man can obtain the grace of justification through the desire of the sacraments, then Canon 4 refutes you, as does the famous passage in Trent that says the translation from the state of sin to the state of grace cannot be effected except by baptism or the desire thereof. You are the one who changes this dogma into what you would like it to state, that no one can be translated to the state of grace except through baptism in re. Canon 4 itself is a refutation of your repeated false dichotomy between justification and salvation because that Canon defines that the sacraments or the desire thereof is necessary to obtain justification.

Nobody can be justified without the sacraments in re or in voto, and nobody can be saved without being justified. Hence the sacraments are necessary for salvation in re or in voto. But after justification nothing else is necessary for salvation than perseverance in the grace and justice received, because a justified soul has entered the Church.

3. Also, your paraphrase is mistaken about what Trent says regarding the sacrament of penance. Trent teaches "This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been regenerated." But even you said "the desire for Penance can be effective for "salvation and so the sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation in re or in voto, but the above passage says Baptism is necessary - not for justification only but for salvation - in just the way penance is necesary, which means Baptism is also necessary for salvation in re or in voto.

This is plainly taught in the Roman Catechism - when the reception of water baptism is rendered impossible through no fault of the person, that person can obtain grace and justice through his desire and intention, combined with repentance for past sins. The Catechism, following St. Thomas, contrasts adults who can receive this with infants who cannot, and plainly teaches that in adults the same danger present for infants - of dying and going to hell - is not present. So the Catechism has not even the slightest doubt that those who die justified will eventually go to heaven, while you unfortunately persist in your impious doubt concerning this already defined truth. This shows that in addition to the dogmatic teaching cited above the intent of the Tridentine Fathers and the mind of the Catholic Church is plainly diametrically opposed to your own.

You should ask yourself why you are the one adding to, subtracting from, editing out or otherwise in some way detracting from the plain dogmatic teaching above if you are really concerned about holding to the Faith handed down exactly as the Church has once defined it. The reason is because like most Feeneyites you care about what your own private judgment tells you God should have done rather than what the Church infallibly teaches you that He has done.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** July 07, 2014, 09:53:16 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Dear Lad, thanks for your answer and your thoughts. Although I think your mistake is grave, still I believe you are mistaken in good faith. We'll come back to the history of BOD in a moment, let's start with Trent,

1. I'd like you to address this canon,
Quote
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Do you deny that Trent is here saying that the grace of justification can be received by the desire of the sacraments? It's very clear from the other canons as well, where Trent condemns the idea that justification can be received by faith alone, that Trent is speaking of baptism primarily here.

As is quite clear from the passage in Trent, Nishant, Trent is lumping all the Sacraments together, based on the phrase "though all are not indeed necessary for every individual". So it's not talking about just Baptism. Some people will need the Sacrament of Confession for salvation, well, actually most, due to falling from the state of justification after Baptism. THAT Sacrament can clearly be received in voto as Trent taught elsewhere. So the idea is that SOME of the Sacraments can be received in voto. Character sacraments simply cannot. No one has ever received Holy Orders in voto for example. And I hold the same for Baptism, that the character, the Christian character, whereby one becomes a member of Christ and comes to be recognized by the Father as His Son, which I hold to be a prerequisite for salvation. This character of Baptism is not just a non-repeatability marker for the Sacrament. As in Holy Orders, where a specific character is imprinted on the soul which makes a person fully capable of acting in persona Christi, so Baptism imprints on the soul the character which makes people adopted as Our Father's sons, and therefore being joined to Our Lord's Passion and therefore capable of being saved. Without this character, the supernatural virtues, which are proper to the inner life of the Holy Trinity, cannot exist in man because we do not have the natural capacity to hold these virtues. Several Church Fathers held this same view regarding the character of Baptism.