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.

Nishant:

If you have "already posted a detailed defense of the (1949) Holy Office Letter," I have not seen it.  Or if I did, I was not recognize as a "defense" at all.  

You are making the same egregious mistake that Fr. Kramer has done.  You are taking a sentence from the narrative on the Decree of Justification out of context of the narrative to arrive at a belief in "salvation by justification alone" then using that derived doctrine to reinterpret that dogmatic canons in a non-literal sense.  It is egregious because the Canons are the infallible dogmatic propositions that constitute the revelation of God proposed by the Church as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  It is the narrative that must be interpreted in light of the Canons not, as you and Fr. Kramer have done, by corrupting the Canon to conform to your understanding of the narrative.  What you are doing is wrong and evidences a fundamental misunderstanding on
f the nature of dogma.

The last section of the narrative on the Decree of Justification from which you have taken your quotation begins:  "Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost..."  What is the "manner" that the justification has been obtained?  It is identified earlier in the same narrative  and that is through explicit faith, contrition, and sacramental Baptism.

Now, they are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism; finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.....  This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

The causes of this justification are:
The final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

For someone who has been baptized, the only thing necessary for salvation is a state of justification.  But to take the citation as you have done, out of the context of the narrative for the purpose of corrupting the literal words of a dogmatic canon is a grave sin against the faith because the canon is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Mystici Corporis[/i]]Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Even the heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter does not say that those souls that "obtain salvation" by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' are "members of the Church."  It says that they are "related to the Church."  This "relation" effects salvation.  As Lumen Gentium said, while referencing the 1949 Holy Office Letter,"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."  Perhaps they are members of the "Church of Christ" which as Lumen Gentium says "subsists in the Catholic Church."

You believe that a Hindu as a "good willed" Hindu by his 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' is thereby "related" to the Church and can obtain "salvation."  The Decree on Justification identifies this "belief" under the heading, "The Manner of Preparation" for Justification.  But you and the 1949 Holy Office Letter have made this "preparatory" state to receive the actual grace of God as the only sufficient and necessary cause of justification.  And with your doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" what more is needed?

The Church has defined that the sacraments, that is, the form and the matter, are necessary for salvation.  You cannot predicate membership in the Church to anyone that has not been baptized.  

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.

I never said that the Canon 4 does not allow a state of justification by desire.  I also quoted the opinion of Fr. Feeney who believed that a state of justification was possible by an explicit votum to receive the sacrament.  The arguments of Ladislaus are excellent but not necessary to profess the Catholic faith.  But the same thing can be said of you, if you heretically affirm that a man can obtain salvation without the sacraments "then Canon 4 refutes you." Again, for clarity sake, the sacrament is the form and matter.  The same Canon 4 that says that the "desire" can produce a state of justification also says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.  You cannot affirm one proposition and deny the other as Fr. Kramer has done because they both have the same authority, that is, God as the Revealer of these truths.  
 
Nor is it my responsibility to explain why the "justified" soul by "desire" does not possess a necessary attribute of justification that permits salvation, but I know that to be true because God has revealed it.  Since you and Fr. Kramer have a problem with mystery, you respond by denying the literal meaning of the dogma and characterize those who oppose your taking "theological license" with God's truth as being "fundamentalists."  

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.

Your have misquoted the text by adding a word.  The Decree on Penance says, "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Est autem hoc sacramentum pœnitentiæ lapsis post baptismum ad salutem necessarium, ut nondum regeneratis ipse baptismus.)  The comparison concerns the kind of "necessity" which differs regarding the ends. Your quotation is not correct.  It does not say as you said, "just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been regenerated."  The necessity of the sacrament of Penance "unto salvation" can be effected by an explicit "desire" for the sacrament of Penance as an explicit desire for Baptism can effect "regeneration."  Again, the distinction between "salvation" and "regeneration" is made here just as it is made in the dogmatic decree of Canon 4.  

It was Fr. Kramer, with your support, who was the "one adding to, subtracting from, editing out or otherwise in some way detracting from the plain dogmatic teaching."  He literally changed the conjunction in Canon 4 from a coordinating conjunction to a subordinating conjunction, and then he added the word, "morally" as an adverbial modifier to the word "necessary" which changes the necessity to one of precept.  It was necessary that he do this so that Canon 4 would support his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" which he plucked, just like you, from the narrative on the Decree of Justification.  And you, like Fr. Kramer, make an accusation against me altering the "plain dogmatic teaching" without producing any specific evidence to support the charge.  I have done nothing of the sort.  I have taken the dogmatic Canons literally adding nothing to and taking nothing away.  You of course find that problematic but why add to the sin by dissembling about who in fact is "adding, subtracting from, editing out or otherwise in some way detracting from the plain dogmatic teaching"?

Again, the teaching of explicit BOD as Fr. Joseph Fenton said is the common teaching only since the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine."  That is about 400 years.  It is not a teaching of the "ordinary and universal magisterium."  And this fact is so self-evident that it looks like an insult to point it out.  The end where the doctrine of BOD leads is no longer a matter of speculating on the possible.  We have arrived at the end.  Or to be more specific, you have arrived.  And that is the dissolution of all dogma.

So, what are arguing about?  You do not believe anything with regard to the Decree of Justification or the dogmatic Canons from Trent regarding the sacraments and salvation.  You do not believe that supernatural faith that has as its object a truth revealed by God is necessary for salvation.  You do not believe that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation.  You do not believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation in re or in voto, either implicitly or explicitly.  And you do not believe that being a subject of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.  You are in agreement with the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay  who said:

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics

And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006

Their doctrine and yours is derived from the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  It is the doctrine wherein you hold that any "good willed" Hindu as Hindu, Muslim as a Muslim, Buddhist as a Buddhist, Jєω as a Jєω, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., etc., can by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes,' as the only necessary and sufficient cause, be justified, related to the Church, heir to heaven and obtain salvation.  

What possible objection can you offer against the Prayer Meeting at Assisi?  Or is it that you have no objection?  

Drew

grace existed without the character in the souls of the just before Christ, hence what you say is not true.

Yet these just, despite their being in sanctifying grace, could not enter heaven, could they?  Which speaks to Father Feeney's point, that there can be justification without salvation.

2. Secondly, you are ignoring what the canon says. It is not saying merely that some sacraments can be received in voto, it is saying precisely that some sacraments received in voto effect the grace of justification. But which sacraments can these be? There must be at least two (aut eurom voto is in the plural, meaning strictly "or the desire of them") sacraments whose in voto effect is the grace of justification. And that proves you are wrong, for the two sacraments in question must be baptism and penance.

Sorry that I'm addressing these piecemeal.  I just have a hard time dealing with the lengthy posts and prefer to break down each point.

I see what you're saying, but this passage is not conclusive that way.  It's referring to the Sacraments as a whole being necessary for salvation and thus uses the plural.  Clearly it does not indicate that all the Sacraments, not even the Sacraments necessary for salvation, can be received in voto.  

Holy Communion is also necessary for salvation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.

Trent doesn't distinguish between types of necessity, so the fact that it's necessary by precept makes no difference in the context of this 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.

Trent is using the plural loosely because it's talking about the Sacraments plural as a group.  I do not find this argument to be conclusive.  It might imply what you're saying, but then again it might not.  Its obvious intent is to condemn the notion that people can be saved without the Sacraments by faith alone (or supernatural virtues alone).  It condemns as heretical the opinion held by most BoD proponents.  I think that it's reading too much into this to assert that it's proof for BoD.  You were the first who started to use language that would have the Sacraments operating through the votum and being the instrumental cause of justification even in BoD.  Most BoD proponents fall under this anathema.

This is a fascinating and informative exchange reading Lad's and Nishant's posts and blocking out the other nonsense cluttering up this thread; thank you gentlemen.