Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: nadieimportante on November 27, 2011, 03:25:09 PM
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
VS.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
VS.
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
St Augustine's position on this is hardly definitive. There is ample theological support for the position that catachumens are saved, just as there is for the existence of limbo, something St. Augustine would have denied.
No one can say someone is not Catholic or is heretical for having the position that catachumens can be saved.
-
St Augustine's position on this is hardly definitive.
It is definitive for St. Augustine, what I posted was his final position on the catechumen. Besides, no one can argue against it. They whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them
There is ample theological support for the position that catachumens are saved,
I would not call it ample, you'll find that the Fathers were against the idea. Besides, the question is, can someone die before God accomplishes what he has preordained, can "fate" trump God's plan?
No one can say someone is not Catholic or is heretical for having the position that catachumens can be saved.
That is correct. However, it is a rare thing today to find a Catholic that limits BOD to the catechumen.
-
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
There are thousands of examples of people being raised from the dead just to be baptized. Yet there has never been one example of a person saved by baptism of desire. Why would God SEND BACK thousands to be baptized if baptism of desire were salvific?
From : Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, by Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.:
The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family."
22 Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.
-
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
There are thousands of examples of people being raised from the dead just to be baptized. Yet there has never been one example of a person saved by baptism of desire. Why would God SEND BACK thousands to be baptized if baptism of desire were salvific?
From : Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, by Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.:
"The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family."
22 Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.
-
Why would God SEND BACK thousands to be baptized if baptism of desire were salvific?
Because He wants greater glory for those particular souls, which they will receive on account of the indelible character actual Baptism confers, but BOD doesn't.
Perhaps?
-
it is a rare thing today to find a Catholic that limits BOD to the catechumen.
How true. BOD is for everyone who did not receive a proper baptism. As it is understood and taught by many Catholics today, BOD actually renders the Sacrament of Baptism superfluous. Besides, who wants to be the one to tell grieving parents that their little baby is not with God in heaven? It is so much easier to just tickle their ears.
-
Need BOD imply a guarantee of salvation? I mean, given that actual Baptism is itself no guarantee, why can't someone with BOD still end up in Hell?
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
If the Council of Trent said it, then that's the end of the matter. Church Councils are infallible. St. Augustine (as much as I love him) isn't.
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
If the Council of Trent said it, then that's the end of the matter. Church Councils are infallible. St. Augustine (as much as I love him) isn't.
The Council of Trent never mentions the matter of a catechumen who dies before he can be baptized. The quote is from the fallible Catechism of the Council of Trent (the English translation).
What Saint Augustine wrote is a dogmatic truth that could have been said by anyone: They whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them
To explain it another way, it is God who coverted the person by His grace, conversion of the stiffnecked sinner is the hard part. St. John the Baptist said that God can turn stones into sons of Abraham. Yet, the easy part of the conversion, getting someone to pour water on a head and say a few words, that part, God can't accomplish, since He is thwarted by fate?
One does not need St. Augustine to see the that "the man who takes up with this error will fall into an absolute vortex of confusion ", speculations like: baptism of desire of the catechumen, baptism of desire of people who don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit baptism of desire, salvation by invincible ignorance, implicit faith, universal salvation, an invisible church of that includes non-Catholics etc.
-
I understand what you are saying, Nadie, and I agree with you that there is no question of God's will being thwarted by fate. That much is certain. It seems that St. Augustine, in the quoted passage, was chiefly concerned to settle that very point, and the involvement of BOD in the matter is largely accidental. The statement
1. No one whom God predestines [for Baptism] can be snached away [from baptism].
is true only because the more general statement
2. No one whom God predestines [for X] can be snatched away [from X].
is true by definition. Using 'baptism' as an instance of 'X' neither adds nor subtracts any from the truth-value of the general statement. The BOD controversy is created by a separate question, viz. whether only those who have completed water-baptism may be saved. We know that this question is answered in the negative, since we are witness to several counterexamples in the following. Neither St. Dismas, nor any of the Old Testament Patriarchs, nor any of the Holy Innocents, were ever baptised with water. They were admitted into Heaven solely by divine fiat, but God has the power to do such things if He wants to. In these cases we say that they were "baptized" in their blood, or by their desire to be united to Christ. Note the presence of the scare-quotes in the previous sentence. The terms 'baptism of blood' and 'baptism of desire' are very unfortunate and probably ought to be dropped, since they merely confuse people and often lead to the very abuses you've listed above. However, the ideas of a martyrdom in lieu of water-baptism, or a spiritual union with Christ in lieu of water-baptism, being sufficient for salvation in certain circuмscribed cases, are not impossible ideas.
-
I understand what you are saying, Nadie, and I agree with you that there is no question of God's will being thwarted by fate. That much is certain. It seems that St. Augustine, in the quoted passage, was chiefly concerned to settle that very point, and the involvement of BOD in the matter is largely accidental. The statement
1. No one whom God predestines [for Baptism] can be snached away [from baptism].
is true only because the more general statement
2. No one whom God predestines [for X] can be snatched away [from X].
is true by definition. Using 'baptism' as an instance of 'X' neither adds nor subtracts any from the truth-value of the general statement. The BOD controversy is created by a separate question, viz. whether only those who have completed water-baptism may be saved. We know that this question is answered in the negative, since we are witness to several counterexamples in the following. Neither St. Dismas, nor any of the Old Testament Patriarchs, nor any of the Holy Innocents, were ever baptised with water. They were admitted into Heaven solely by divine fiat, but God has the power to do such things if He wants to.
Excuse me, but this was under the old dispensation, prior to the beginning of the Catholic Church and the New Covenant. Thus, any quibbling about the grace of baptism does not apply to the good thief, the Patriarchs, and the Holy Innocents.
-
The BOD controversy is created by a separate question, viz. whether only those who have completed water-baptism may be saved.
PereJoseph correctly answered your examples.
Let me add that there would be no need for speculations on all the variations of "baptism of desire", if there was no need for baptism of water.
It is a dogma of the Church that to be a member of the Church one must be baptized. It is also a dogma of the Church that those who die outside of the Church are lost.
The dogmatically defined language could not be any clearer. If it does not mean what it says, then nothing of Church teaching is clear.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to
be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver
of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
This Canon is on the sacrament of baptism, that is the subject and title of the Session. It is very clear that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. BOD is not a sacrament!
--------------------------
CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
This is very clear too, and concurs with the Canon 5 above.
---------------------------------------
Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General
Canon IV. 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.
(The heading of this Session is sacraments in General. That means all seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, penance, communion, matrimony, extreme unction, and the priesthood. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so please refrain from salivating at the sight of the word “desire”. One can’t become a priest or be married “by desire”.)
This says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. It also says that not all are necessary for every individual, therefore, at least one is necessary for salvation. this one can only be the sacrament of baptism, since that's exactly what the two Canons on the sacrament of baptism say.
The three canons concur with each other perfectly and clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, the proponents of BOD of the catechumen, ask the speculative question:
What happens to a catechumen:
1)who is sanctified by God before being baptized,
2)then dies unexpectedly,
3)while still in a state of grace,
4)without anyone around to baptize him?
This is total speculation. What are the chances of such a possibility? Here's additional comments concerning points 1,2,3, and 4 above:
1) Yes, a person potentially can be sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, Trent has said so, however, how long before baptism? It maybe one second before the water hits his head. If a person is sanctified one second before baptism, that would be before.
2)3)4)- no one dies unexpectedly to God. Why would God sanctify someone, then take his life before anyone can baptize him?
The only answer to the speculative question above, that would fulfill all the requirements of Trent touched on by this question, is that, every person sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, will be baptized. They cannot die unbaptized, God would not allow them to die. No such person has ever existed or will ever exist. This is what St. Augustine meant by:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
PereJoseph correctly answered your examples.
No he didn't, not in the least. I will explain why later. And the rest of what you wrote is simply prescinding from the argument.
-
And the rest of what you wrote is simply prescinding from the argument
Your NEW argument is that the sacrament baptism is not necesary for salvation. You said:The BOD controversy is created by a separate question, viz. whether only those who have completed water-baptism may be saved.
Therefore, it is you who has changed the subject, therefore, I answered your objection.
-
What Saint Augustine wrote is a dogmatic truth that could have been said by anyone: They whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them
What is not a dogmatic fact is the claim that catachumens who die before Baptism go to Hell. Where is your evidence for the assertion that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible?
What is predestined to happen does not eliminate our free will nor does it make God capable of injustice. These claims that God punishes people awaiting Baptism with eternal damnation in order to save them from the guilt of sins they haven't yet committed is very corrosive to belief in Divine Justice.
Baptism is necessary for salvation - but it is the grace of Baptism, not the pouring of water over the head, that is necessary for salvation.
Those who deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood make God a capricious tyrant, in order to protect what they believe is some sort of orthodoxy. The Augustinian position of sending unbaptized infants into the fire to avoid the charge of Pelagianism also treats God as a tyrant. It's not necessary for the salvation of any Catholic to deny Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, and it won't get anyone to heaven stubbornly insisting that water Baptism alone can save a person, driving those who might keep or accept the Faith to the opposite extreme.
-
fallible Catechism of the Council of Trent
You've got it backwards. Church Councils are Dogmatic and cannot contain errors, Saint Augustine was a fallible human being.
Regarding your question, if a person is on his/her way to get baptized and gets killed along the way, then God has mercy on their soul since they desired to be baptized.
-
Where is your evidence for the assertion that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible?
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents 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.”
No catechism is infallible.
As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.
-
fallible Catechism of the Council of Trent
You've got it backwards. Church Councils are Dogmatic and cannot contain errors, Saint Augustine was a fallible human being.
Regarding your question, if a person is on his/her way to get baptized and gets killed along the way, then God has mercy on their soul since they desired to be baptized.
READ carefully what I wrote, I said catechisms are fallible. In this case we have a fallible catechism vs. fallible St. Augustine. The Council of Trent did not say anything about the salvation of a catechumen that dies by accident before being baptized.
-
Ah, ok. But what is your response to the point I made?
As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.
That's funny, because I read Tele's post a few times and did not see any false assumptions or anything like that in it. Could it be his post was full of them, or could it be you said that in order to get out of responding to him because you have no response?
-
Regarding your question, if a person is on his/her way to get baptized and gets killed along the way, then God has mercy on their soul since they desired to be baptized.
What St. Augustine is saying is that the person can't die on the way to be baptized unless God allowed it. God's plans can't be thwarted by "an accident", by fate, and God is not a tyrant. So what is left?
Either God has predestined that some will be saved without baptism, and predestined some to be created too ignorant, to dense, to recieve His grace of conversion (invisible ignorant), all of which has NEVER been declared by the Church.
OR
or else all the dogmatically declared dogmas of EENS are to be understood as they are clearly written, for God's grace can convert stones, and getting water baptism is the easiest part of conversion.
-
Ah, ok. But what is your response to the point I made?
As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.
That's funny, because I read Tele's post a few times and did not see any false assumptions or anything like that in it. Could it be his post was full of them, or could it be you said that in order to get out of responding to him because you have no response?
Perhaps if Tele would quote me saying the things he attributes to me, I would answer him. there is no point in answering the strawmen that he created. i didn't say anything of what he criticizes. The proof is that he can't quote me. Notice that I quote everyone, then respond. If others would attempt to do the same, they will likely answer their own question.
-
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
No. But someone can die by accident before he has has accomplished what he had intended to do.
-
Can someone die by accident before God has accomplished what he has preordained?
No. But someone can die by accident before he has has accomplished what he had intended to do.
There is no difference between the two descriptions, it is only by God's will that we intend anything good, and it is only by God that we are taken from this sea of time. Not one justified person, predestined by God, is lost. There are no accidents, no mistakes. When God makes His call we must respond to His grace. If God does not provide the water it is because the person would reject it, maybe not that day, but some other time.
In all times, most of the people of the world reject God's gracel. just look around you, even the majority of Catholics reject God's will, and they are baptized. Baptism does not mean salvation. In fact, in hell, the baptized person is worse off than the non-baptized.
God can turn stones into children of Abraham, His grace can convert His most hardened sinner/enemy. He has all the time He wants to convert the person. If you've ever tried to convert someone you will understand just how difficult that work is. And yet, by your conclusions, you betray the mindset that the conversion is easy, and then the easy part, baptism, ANYONE pouring water over the persons head and saying a few words, that part, God does not have the time. It is total insanity. It stems from a total disbelief in the fact that non-Catholics are all lost, even if they shed their own blood for Christ. That is the bottom line.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
-
or else all the dogmatically declared dogmas of EENS are to be understood as they are clearly written, for God's grace can convert stones, and getting water baptism is the easiest part of conversion.
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven. The very point of a dogmatic definition is to DEFINE PRECISELY and EXACTLY what the Church means by the very words of the formula. If it does not do this by those very words in the formula then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless. ANYONE who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. They who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by noninfallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of these infallible truths fallen from heaven. They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Holy Ghost to the re-evaluation of fallible human docuмents,thereby inverting their authority, perverting their integrity and denying their purpose.
All Nine dogmatic, Infallible, ex cathedra, definitions of the Holy Ghost
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implications of these pronouncements, taken together, are as follows:
1. All nine of these statements are dogmatic, infallible, ex cathedra definitions of the Church and of the Pontiffs who made them.
2. Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
5. Excluded also from this real and necessary membership are those who are unwilling to submit to the religious sovereignty of the Pope, though their faith be otherwise Catholic, and their morals laudable. All this means that the Church establishes the terms of membership within itself and is reasserting them by these decrease and no one else.
6. Similarly, the decrees exclude all exceptions whatsoever, and implied in them is the sanctioning of all subterfuges and excuses such as "invincible ignorance," "good will," "baptism of desire," and the like.
7. Since the aforementioned formula (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) is a doctrine of Catholicity, it is the standard of orthodoxy on the subject of salvation; which is to say, all writers, whether they be saints and/or Doctors, of old or of late, all popes and theologians, of whatever era, and their pronouncements are reliable in their treatment of this subject, if they accept and support it. Their testimony or opinions are useless (at best), if they do not, this regardless of any other contribution they may have made to Catholic erudition. The same must be said of the works of all Catholic writers.
8. Such a dogmatic statement is the most certain knowledge that men have, more certain than metaphysical principles, or mathematical formulas, or historical accounts. It is the revelation and proposition of God Himself.
9. Such a dogmatic statement is not to be colored, or reduced, or altered, by reference to the Sacred Scriptures. On the contrary, it is in terms of such a statement that all the Scriptures are to be read and understood.'
10. This doctrine is a mystery, as are all the sacred dogmas of the Faith. This means that it cannot be fully understood, nor adequately explained. As with other dogmas, were this truth self evident, or provable, or comprehensible, there would be little reason for the Church to define it.
11. The negative tenor of these definitions is to warn that any word, or artifice, or attentuation, which relieves every individual of the human race from the obligation of joining the Roman Catholic Church is condemned as contrary to divine prescription.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
14. The Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is described as fundamental or "'foundational" to Catholic theology. It is called the "Dogma of Faith," because, of a truth, unless a person accepts it in all its momentous absoluteness, he really does not accept the Catholic Faith, howsoever he protests that he does. Conversely, he who dilutes this doctrine to any degree, so radically distorts the Faith that he renders it null and void, and his own faith in the bargain. For he who denies this doctrine makes Catholicity hardly more than a nicety, as if membership in the Church were like the first class compartment on a commercial airliner, in which the majority of others will arrive at the same destination, really none the worse for their second class transport.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
16. When it is responded that certain individuals do not know that what they are hearing is God's word, the reply is: What is being said demands that careful inquiry be made. If the inquiry is made with the disposition of humility, integrity, and courage, the inquirer will find that the word cannot be denied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) proclamations of the popes, a Catholic must also believe what is taught by the Catholic Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Magisterium = the teaching authority of the Church).
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”
The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Outside the Church There is No Salvation, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by calling fallible, non-magisterial statements which contradict this dogma, as part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they aren’t.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio,
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope St. Pius V, Bull excommunicating the heretic Queen Elizabeth of England, Feb.25, 1570: “The sovereign jurisdiction of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, has been given by Him [Jesus Christ], unto Whom all power in Heaven and on Earth is given, the King who reigns on high, but to one person on the face of the Earth, to Peter, prince of the Apostles... If any shall contravene this Our decree, we bind them with the same bond of anathema.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 ;
Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
-
When God's mercies have reached their end He punishes, and pardons no more. God is merciful; but, as great as His mercy is, how many people He sends to Hell every day! God is merciful but He is also just; and He is therefore obliged to punish those who offend Him. When sins reach a certain number, God pardons no more. St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and other Fathers teach that, according to the words of Scripture: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight" (Wisdom 11: 2 1), God has fixed for each person the number of sins He will pardon; and when this number is completed, He will pardon no more. God does bear with us, but not forever. When the time comes for vengeance, He punishes. How many God has sent to Hell for the first offense! St. Gregory relates that a child five years old was seized by the devil for having uttered a blasphemy and carried into Hell. Another of eight, after his first sin, died and was lost. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
How many souls have been damned for a single mortal sin! St. Ignatius of Loyola
Faith is a gift from God. And let no one have any doubt whatsoever that, while this gift is given to some, to others it is not given. Why it is not given to everyone ought not disturb the faithful; even if no one were delivered, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God!
St. Augustine
-
Question for Nadie:
Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.
-
Where is your evidence for the assertion that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible?
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here is what their introduction had to say about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents 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.”
No catechism is infallible.
As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.
I think we all know what is and is not infallible. The real question is whom do you trust, the Dimond's pitch or St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism. For the rational Catholic, the only answer can be the latter. Why would one trust the Dimond's over the Angelic Doctor. Pure folly.
Could St. Thomas be wrong. Sure. Will I be judged for believing St. Thomas on an issue that is irrelevant to my life? Not a chance. Would I be judged if I followed the Dimonds and they turn out to be wrong, I think yes. Thus, I will follow the teaching of the Saint that Our Lord praised.
I don't think any of us believe that a large number of souls are saved by BOD. We just recognize the ability of God to show mercy upon whom He shows mercy.
Finally, follow the money. If the Dimonds did not find a hook to pull in unlearned minds, then they would not be able to fund their enterprise. Their existence is dependent upon rejecting all of the clergy, NO or traditional.
-
Although I believe in BOD and BOB, I do not think that feeneyites such as those Benedictines at MHFM should be called "heretics" for not believeing in BOD and BOB. Does anyone else agree with me?
I have heard some sede clergy like Fr. Cekada deny holy communion to public feeneyites, is the same true of the SSPX?
(p.s. Even if you disagree with MHFM, we should still respect the fact that they are traditional benedictines who hold a very powerfull apostolate).
-
Where is your evidence for the assertion that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible?
No catechism is infallible.
As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.
I think we all know what is and is not infallible. The real question is whom do you trust, the Dimond's pitch or St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism. For the rational Catholic, the only answer can be the latter. Why would one trust the Dimond's over the Angelic Doctor. Pure folly.
Somebody can come to the conclusion that pre-destination excludes the concept of an accidental death and therefore gives grave difficulties to the concept of implicit faith BOD completely independently of any influence of the Dimonds.
For instance, if he read the Church Fathers, he would most likely see that their moral consensus is opposed -- explicitly in some writers, such as St Augustine and St Gregory of Nyssa -- to the concept of BOD. It is commonly said that BOD is the constant teaching of the Church, but I have never seen anybody sufficiently explain the fact that the Church Fathers hardly mention it at all -- that is, unless they are writing against it.
This issue also troubles me, since the 1941 letter from the Holy Office seems to clearly conflict with the moral consensus of the Church Fathers and the plain meaning of the language of numerous oecuмenical councils and the teachings of the great missionary saints of the XVIIth century (such as St Francis Xavier, St Peter Claver, St Isaac Jogues, &c.). If I were to accept implicit faith, it would be purely as a bow to authority, though I am not convinced that the Church's authority has defined this subject. It would be purely out of obedience because, according to all logic, the whole theory of BOD makes no sense whatsoever and I have never seen a convincing explanation. Perhaps it could make sense if one were ready to accept that the mind is fundamentally incapable of knowing the Truth as such and therefore one could not be held accountable for betraying the movements of the intellect out of fear, but I cannot accept this.
Anyway, to make a long post shorter, the issue is not so simple as St Thomas versus the Dimonds; your interpretation of St Thomas is debatable and the Dimonds can be completely removed from this discussion without anything changing. For instance, I cannot recall ever having read the Dimonds' literature on this topic and still have my doubts concerning BOD.
-
Where is your evidence for the assertion that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible?
No catechism is infallible.
As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.
I think we all know what is and is not infallible. The real question is whom do you trust, the Dimond's pitch or St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism. For the rational Catholic, the only answer can be the latter. Why would one trust the Dimond's over the Angelic Doctor. Pure folly.
Somebody can come to the conclusion that pre-destination excludes the concept of an accidental death and therefore gives grave difficulties to the concept of implicit faith BOD completely independently of any influence of the Dimonds.
For instance, if he read the Church Fathers, he would most likely see that their moral consensus is opposed -- explicitly in some writers, such as St Augustine and St Gregory of Nyssa -- to the concept of BOD. It is commonly said that BOD is the constant teaching of the Church, but I have never seen anybody sufficiently explain the fact that the Church Fathers hardly mention it at all -- that is, unless they are writing against it.
This issue also troubles me, since the 1941 letter from the Holy Office seems to clearly conflict with the moral consensus of the Church Fathers and the plain meaning of the language of numerous oecuмenical councils and the teachings of the great missionary saints of the XVIIth century (such as St Francis Xavier, St Peter Claver, St Isaac Jogues, &c.). If I were to accept implicit faith, it would be purely as a bow to authority, though I am not convinced that the Church's authority has defined this subject. It would be purely out of obedience because, according to all logic, the whole theory of BOD makes no sense whatsoever and I have never seen a convincing explanation. Perhaps it could make sense if one were ready to accept that the mind is fundamentally incapable of knowing the Truth as such and therefore one could not be held accountable for betraying the movements of the intellect out of fear, but I cannot accept this.
Anyway, to make a long post shorter, the issue is not so simple as St Thomas versus the Dimonds; your interpretation of St Thomas is debatable and the Dimonds can be completely removed from this discussion without anything changing. For instance, I cannot recall ever having read the Dimonds' literature on this topic and still have my doubts concerning BOD.
I think one could just as easily say it doesn't make any sense that someone a minute before baptism could be struck by a meteorite and the disposition of his soul without the sacrament means nothing because God ordained his damnation, but that a minute after baptism the same person struck by a meteorite would go to heaven, because God ordained his salvation.
It makes God seem capricious. The Church honors martyrs as saints who died without Baptism.
The fact that the Church has not condemned Baptism of Desire over many centuries makes it clear that it's not an issue for people to accept Baptism of desire. We can't know how God will judge people, we can accept that Baptism is necessary without consigning all those who are unbaptized, often through no fault of their own, to Hell.
-
I don't think anyone who supports the strict interpretation would be able to tell the relatives of a catachumen that the catachumen is certainly damned because he was struck down without Baptism.
-
Question for Nadie:
Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.
Don't mix baptism of blood with baptism of desire of the catechumen, and all the other modern offshoots of it. That is just a tactic to FIND the support of some saints. A few saints don't make doctrine. Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church.
There are maybe like 10 examples of baptism of blood saints in the 2000 year history. Not one can be proved not to have been baptized. Now, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of people who are incomprehensible just hanging on to life for the longest time, then they are baptized and immediately die. Fr. DeSmet details thousands of such infant and elderly baptisms he administered himself in his book written in the 1850's. There are hundreds of examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized.
Why would God not provide any examples of baptism of blood except like 10 back 1800 years ago, and then God provides hundreds of thousands of examples of persons who scaresly held on to life and died by the groves (as described by Fr. Smet), immediately upon being baptized? Why would God provide so many examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized?
That's baptism of blood, and as for baptism of desire of the catechumen (forget all the other offshoots of it, they have no support from the medieval saints )there is not one single example in 2000 years.
Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church. Catholics follow dogma, not a story here nad there over 2000 years.
As for calling anyone a heretic, I don't do that, not for BOB or BOD of the catechumen. If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumnes who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scaresly any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.
-
I don't think anyone who supports the strict interpretation would be able to tell the relatives of a catachumen that the catachumen is certainly damned because he was struck down without Baptism.
If the issue was just about baptism of desire of the catechumen, there would not exist any discussion. How such people can there be?
By the way, unbaptized catechumens were not allowed to be buried in Catholic cementaries, till 1917.
-
I think one could just as easily say it doesn't make any sense that someone a minute before baptism could be struck by a meteorite and the disposition of his soul without the sacrament means nothing because God ordained his damnation, but that a minute after baptism the same person struck by a meteorite would go to heaven, because God ordained his salvation.
Pure speculation on your part. you are just thinking out loud.
Read the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of predestination. God does not ordain anyones damnation, the person damns himself. If a condemned person in hell were sent back to earth for 1000 years, he would still damn himself. God does not make any mistakes, He had put every soul through every possible scenario of salvation before he created the Earth. There are no mistakes in Heaven or Hell.
The fact that the Church has not condemned Baptism of Desire over many centuries makes it clear that it's not an issue for people to accept Baptism of desire.
The Church has also not condemned all the offshoots of baptism of desire, like implicit desire of people who don't want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance. The Church moves slow. That does not render meaningless the clear words of all those dogmas I posted, to those with eyes to see. If all those dogmas can be rendered useless, then NOTHING, no dogma can stand. Then all dogmas do not mean what they say.
We can't know how God will judge people[/u], we can accept that Baptism is necessary without consigning all those who are unbaptized, often through no fault of their own, to Hell.
We were always required to judge all unbaptized infants to never be able to see the beatific vision. We were always required to judge all non-Catholics as without a doubt lost for all eternity:
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
-
The fact that the Church has not condemned Baptism of Desire over many centuries makes it clear that it's not an issue for people to accept Baptism of desire.
The Church has also not condemned all the offshoots of baptism of desire, like implicit desire of people who don't want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance. The Church moves slow. That does not render meaningless the clear words of all those dogmas I posted, to those with eyes to see. If all those dogmas can be rendered useless, then NOTHING, no dogma can stand. Then all dogmas do not mean what they say.
P.S.- NOTICE that I didn't include the offshoot of baptism of desire that teaches the theory of a invisible church that includes saved non-Catholics, the theory that says that there are members who belong to the "soul of the church" who are not members of the visible Church". I didn't include that theory, which you will find in catechisms of the early 1900's till some even today, because IT WAS CONDEMNED by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 1943. All the other theories will also be condemned one day too, when order returns:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver
of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
-
nadieimportante,
Can you please use a larger font so we can all see what you are shouting at us more clearly?
-
Tele,
Just so you know. I am in complete agreement with you here!
:dancing:
-
nadieimportante,
Can you please use a larger font so we can all see what you are shouting at us more clearly?
You can choose to call it shouting, that's your take.
I highlight and enlarge some text for people that don't have the time to read everything.
-
Why does it feel like someone is here with an agenda... :rolleyes:
-
Why does it feel like someone is here with an agenda... :rolleyes:
Because obviously someone is here with "an agenda", to sway Catholics away from thinking that there is salvation outside of the Church. How much clearer can I have made it?:
"If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumen who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in."
I've met maybe three BODers in my life who really restricted their BOD to the catechumen. I doubt there are any here on this forum. That is why I have "an agenda". A Catholic agenda.
Basically there are only two kinds of Catholics today, those who believe in an unrestricted BOD (and who only give lip service to EENS), and those that believe in the absolute necessity of baptism and EENS as it is written. There are scarcely any in between, not enough to talk about.
-
Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.
Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics. Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.
IMO, this is all about the Dimonds' pocketbook and pride. I have had a few exchanges with them and they are liars and nasty men.
Catholics should worry about their spiritual lives. Forget BOD and concentrate on how to become a saint.
-
Why does it feel like someone is here with an agenda... :rolleyes:
It certainly doesn't seem to be a subversive agenda, though.
-
Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.
You need to get out of your knowledge base ghetto, if you truly think the Dimonds are the only believers in EENS as it is written.
Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics. Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.
Read my posting just before yours:
the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in." and until it is rooted out, no pretty Latin Mass, or discussions with Rome about the real meaning of Vatican II, will change anything, because the foundations remain rotted.
What could be clearer?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
-
Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.
Do you have any reasons to think so ?
Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics.
Maybe not on most Catholics in the US, who are comfortable with their immersion in an integrally Protestant cultural ethos, but it has quite an effect on those who have never been fooled into accepting that mindset.
Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.
It has an effect on how one goes about living his faith around other people and upon one's zeal and affability. It gives a very different mindset and sense to the believer if he believes that his heretical and/or apostate loved ones and co-workers certainly need to explicitly profess the Catholic Faith and receive water baptism, as opposed to his holding the assumption that, if they are good in their heart of hearts (something totally theologically unquantifiable and mysterious), God will save them in an extraordinary way outside of his covenant with mankind. Since we don't save or damn ourselves through the coöperation or resistance to grace alone in a vacuum but rather have our salvation play out in the day-to-day situations of our duty and our interactions with our neighbours, the whole question of salvation seems pretty relevant.
IMO, this is all about the Dimonds' pocketbook and pride. I have had a few exchanges with them and they are liars and nasty men.
Like I said, the Dimonds are much less influential than they sometimes appear. As far as I know, Nadie is not influenced by the Dimonds; do you have any solid reason to suppose the contrary ? People were having these discussions long before the Dimonds were even born.
-
and until it is rooted out, no pretty Latin Mass, or discussions with Rome about the real meaning of Vatican II, will change anything, because the foundations remain rotted.
Dogmas no longer mean what they clearly say!
If "Absolute no one, even if they shed their blood for Christ" does not mean what it says, then no Catholic teaching means what it says, and can evolve 180 degrees.
-
I don't think anyone who supports the strict interpretation would be able to tell the relatives of a catachumen that the catachumen is certainly damned because he was struck down without Baptism.
If the issue was just about baptism of desire of the catechumen, there would not exist any discussion.
Not according to the water Baptism alone crowd - no Baptism = no salvation. If there is only salvation for those who have received water Baptism then no catachumens who've died before Baptism can be saved.
-
I don't think anyone who supports the strict interpretation would be able to tell the relatives of a catachumen that the catachumen is certainly damned because he was struck down without Baptism.
If the issue was just about baptism of desire of the catechumen, there would not exist any discussion.
Not according to the water Baptism alone crowd - no Baptism = no salvation. If there is only salvation for those who have received water Baptism then no catachumens who've died before Baptism can be saved.
That is too simplistic and misleading. The theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, answers the question of what happens to a catechumen who is pre-sanctified (justified) before he is baptized, but dies before he can receive the sacrament of baptism.
St. Augustine is telling you that there is no such person, that the supposition is ridiculous, because God can complete what he started. Fr. Feeney said that he does not know where that person goes, and that neither do you. The BODer that knows his stuff, and the strict EENSer who knows his stuff, KNOW, that they can't answer otherwise. No one knows where such a person goes, or if there has ever been such a person at all.
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification, but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know, do you?
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there ate such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
Bread of Life, (1952) by Fr. Leonard Feeney, pg 137
-
St. Augustine is telling you that there is no such person, that the supposition is ridiculous, because God can complete what he started.
I suspected you were doing a typical Feeneyite evasion - for example when someone claims God can save someone who is not baptized, they will say yes - but only later you find out they weren't conceding that they insist it never happens.
So you say the case of catachumens isn't an issue, but I knew it is an issue for those who insist on salvation only for those who have been baptized by water alone.
I think the best example is someone who is baptized by someone who does not intend to do what the Church does.
Such a person would believe they were validly baptized, the whole conduct of their life would reflect that belief, yet according to those who say only water Baptism can save God has predestined their damnation.
-
the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in." and until it is rooted out, no pretty Latin Mass, or discussions with Rome about the real meaning of Vatican II, will change anything, because the foundations remain rotted.
What could be clearer?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
No one is denying the Dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
You do not understand V2, if you believe that BOD was its root cause.
Not one of your cites actually supports your position. One must make a logical jump to get to your position. Your position is not a dogma, it is an extrapolation made by a few.
No one that understands BOD would sit back and assume that their family and friends are safe. Those saved by BOD are far and few. As I recall, Father Sanborn told me that he doubts that anyone today would be saved by BOD.
I wonder how much time the Dimonds spend trying to convert non-Catholics? From my correspondence with them, I have concluded that it is all a scheme to get money and followers. They have to establish a pitch to pull Catholics away from th e Sacraments and follow them.
All Feeneyites are not necessarily followers of the Dimonds, however they are the main proponents of the heresy.
-
Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.
Do you have any reasons to think so ?
Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics.
Maybe not on most Catholics in the US, who are comfortable with their immersion in an integrally Protestant cultural ethos, but it has quite an effect on those who have never been fooled into accepting that mindset.
Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.
It has an effect on how one goes about living his faith around other people and upon one's zeal and affability. It gives a very different mindset and sense to the believer if he believes that his heretical and/or apostate loved ones and co-workers certainly need to explicitly profess the Catholic Faith and receive water baptism, as opposed to his holding the assumption that, if they are good in their heart of hearts (something totally theologically unquantifiable and mysterious), God will save them in an extraordinary way outside of his covenant with mankind. Since we don't save or damn ourselves through the coöperation or resistance to grace alone in a vacuum but rather have our salvation play out in the day-to-day situations of our duty and our interactions with our neighbours, the whole question of salvation seems pretty relevant.
IMO, this is all about the Dimonds' pocketbook and pride. I have had a few exchanges with them and they are liars and nasty men.
Like I said, the Dimonds are much less influential than they sometimes appear. As far as I know, Nadie is not influenced by the Dimonds; do you have any solid reason to suppose the contrary ? People were having these discussions long before the Dimonds were even born.
Very well put. That is exactly the problem in English speaking countries. They "are comfortable with their immersion in an integrally Protestant cultural ethos. They are liberals but they don't know it.
-
We know God is just and merciful. Claiming that Providence ensures that God invariably supplies water Baptism to those who are saved is not a simple matter to reconcile with God's justice. For example, believing in the damnation of all pre-Columbian indians who never heard the Gospel - claiming that Catholics must accept that is something that is corrosive to belief in God's mercy, and that is why Catholics have never been and never will be required to accept the Feeneyite position.
-
The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
St. Tthomas never said that "one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB" . No one can become a Catholic unless they are baptized in water. Read the quotes from Mystici Corporus that I post 2 times. BOD is just splitting hairs, it can't say whether such as person is saved or not. The person is not baptized in water, therefore, he is not a member of the Church, but yet he is justified, what happens to him? No one can answer that question, nor prove that there has ever been such a person.
You do not understand V2, if you believe that BOD was its root cause.
If you can change the clear dogmas of EENS to mean the completet opposite, like teaching the variants of BOD like implicit desire of those who do not want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and a soul of th Church which contains non-Catholics, you can change all dogmas. Vatican II is about changing dogmas "legally", evolution of dogma into something else.
Not one of your cites actually supports your position. One must make a logical jump to get to your position. Your position is not a dogma, it is an extrapolation made by a few.
I could not have posted more dogma and sources than I have. Show me examples of what you are accusing me off ".
All Feeneyites are ...proponents of the heresy.
You'd be calling all the Fathers of the Church, all the missionaries to the Indians and Africans, Asians, pretty much all Catholics through history heretics then.
-
St. Augustine is telling you that there is no such person, that the supposition is ridiculous, because God can complete what he started.
I suspected you were doing a typical Feeneyite evasion - for example when someone claims God can save someone who is not baptized, they will say yes - but only later you find out they weren't conceding that they insist it never happens.
How is that an evasion ? It is like if one asked you if God could possibly confect the Eucharist through the passive ministry of an old lady, rather than through the priest. Sure, He could, strictly in the realm of potentialities, but since He has bound Himself to His new covenant with all souls, He does not and it is, therefore, not actually ever possible. Is this an evasion ?
So you say the case of catachumens isn't an issue, but I knew it is an issue for those who insist on salvation only for those who have been baptized by water alone. I think the best example is someone who is baptized by someone who does not intend to do what the Church does. Such a person would believe they were validly baptized, the whole conduct of their life would reflect that belief, yet according to those who say only water Baptism can save God has predestined their damnation.
How has He predestined their damnation in your example ? In Catholic theology, there is no double predestination. There are some who are predestined to salvation and others who, despite God's original intention for them to be saved, are allowed to die in their sins without any further pursuit of grace on God's part. Father Garrigou-Lagrange says that here -- in the fact that God continues to pursue unto efficacious grace and final perseverance the souls of His Elect but does not continue to pursue others, rather allowing them to die in sin -- is the location of the great mystery of predestination and its relationship with free will. God allows certain souls to be lost on account of their sins and prevents other souls from being lost despite their sins. Meanwhile, the freedom of the will to resist or passively coöperate with grace is miraculously preserved, thereby making the moral consequences of all decisions of the will (to resist or coöperate) the possession of the soul itself. So there is no predestination to Hell implied by the scenario you presented.
-
We know God is just and merciful. Claiming that Providence ensures that God invariably supplies water Baptism to those who are saved is not a simple matter to reconcile with God's justice. For example, believing in the damnation of all pre-Columbian indians who never heard the Gospel - claiming that Catholics must accept that is something that is corrosive to belief in God's mercy, and that is why Catholics have never been and never will be required to accept the Feeneyite position.
That is just emotionalism and has nothing to do with a theological understanding of God's mercy and justice.
Besides, there is reason to believe that various saints and priests visited America prior to 1492, such as St Thomas the Apostle, St Brendan, and the priests attached to the Vikings. The Indian stories of pale-skinned men and the appearance of red-haired and blue-eyed tribes, &c., confirm it. There is no reason that one cannot hold to the pious belief that those Indians who held to the natural law and never sinned mortally against it (which, in a world of human sacrifice, death by sadistic torture, and certain Algonkian tribes maintaining the evil custom of young women "trying out" men before choosing one, seems exceedingly rare) were supplied with a preacher and/or cleric to baptise them. There is plenty of evidence for some pre-Columbian contact.
Even then, it is interesting that you brought up the American-European contact, since that does seem to be the great turning point in theological speculation on the question of salvation... Perhaps the rise of cities and urban luxury and pagan education and the middle classes made men softer than their forefathers, such that they could not prevent emotionalism from colouring their theology ?
-
All Feeneyites are ...proponents of the heresy.
You'd be calling all the Fathers of the Church, all the missionaries to the Indians and Africans, Asians, pretty much all Catholics through history heretics then.
I would really be interested in a serious and logically rigorous refutation of this point. I have never seen anybody even attempt to refute it. On the contrary, I have only seen BOD polemicists parrot an opposing manifest falsehood : "All the Fathers and saints and Popes have always believed in BOD and nobody ever thought of doubting it until the XXth century / Europeans find this American fixation on denying the perpetually-held Catholic doctrine of BOD quite strange..." -- or some variant of that.
Since this whole issue troubles me and does not seem to have any definitive resolution, I should add that I am not just being rhetorical when I say that I am interested in an attempted rigorous argument here. I truly would be interested in seeing one; it would help me quite a bit.
-
No one is denying the Dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
You do not understand V2, if you believe that BOD was its root cause.
Not one of your cites actually supports your position. One must make a logical jump to get to your position. Your position is not a dogma, it is an extrapolation made by a few.
No one that understands BOD would sit back and assume that their family and friends are safe. Those saved by BOD are far and few. As I recall, Father Sanborn told me that he doubts that anyone today would be saved by BOD.
I wonder how much time the Dimonds spend trying to convert non-Catholics? From my correspondence with them, I have concluded that it is all a scheme to get money and followers. They have to establish a pitch to pull Catholics away from th e Sacraments and follow them.
All Feeneyites are not necessarily followers of the Dimonds, however they are the main proponents of the heresy.
Bravo GF!
-
We know God is just and merciful. Claiming that Providence ensures that God invariably supplies water Baptism to those who are saved is not a simple matter to reconcile with God's justice. For example, believing in the damnation of all pre-Columbian indians who never heard the Gospel - claiming that Catholics must accept that is something that is corrosive to belief in God's mercy, and that is why Catholics have never been and never will be required to accept the Feeneyite position.
It's "corrosive" to who? Who wrote that? Do you think that the Church did not know that there were unevagelized people in Asia, and Africa, and everywhere, before Coulumbus's discovery? Why did the popes never correct the dogmas to mention BOD, and all it's variants, in 2000 years?
"Corrosive" to those that do not understand God's Providence. Do you think that God put those people out of reach by mistake? Anyone that does think that, has no concept of God's Providence. People can't even convert their neighbor, think some Indian on an island would listen.
before the beginning of the Earth God put every human being through every scenario of life with all it's tempations, and he knows who is His. If he chooses to put those who will be lost, totally out of the way of the Gospel, it is for their own good. Figure that one out for yourself.
-
That is just emotionalism and has nothing to do with a theological understanding of God's mercy and justice.
Really, it's just emotionalism to not see the inconsistency in saying that those who claim 1) that people choose their own damnation 2) those who've never been baptized, through no choice of their own, are surely damned?
Besides, there is reason to believe that various saints and priests visited America prior to 1492, such as St Thomas the Apostle, St Brendan, and the priests attached to the Vikings.
There were undoubtedly huge number of people who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospels.
Perhaps the rise of cities and urban luxury and pagan education and the middle classes made men softer than their forefathers, such that they could not prevent emotionalism from colouring their theology ?
No, the existence of the Americas didn't begin the consumption of luxuries, but it did cause people to ponder the reasons how and why God created these people isolated from the rest of civilization.
-
It's "corrosive" to who? Who wrote that? Do you think that the Church did not know that there were unevagelized people in Asia, and Africa, and everywhere, before Coulumbus's discovery? Why did the popes never correct the dogmas to mention BOD, and all it's variants, in 2000 years?
Yes, they knew, and they also advanced the position of Baptism of Desire. The Popes have written about it. So it's not correct to act as though there's no Church authority behind it.
"Corrosive" to those that do not understand God's Providence. Do you think that God put those people out of reach by mistake? Anyone that does think that, has no concept of God's Providence. People can't even convert their neighbor, think some Indian on an island would listen.
Yes, it is corrosive, just as it is corrosive to Faith to take the Augustinian position that unbaptized babies go into the fire.
It's corrosive because Catholics believe that God is just and merciful, and doesn't create people for the purpose of damning them. Providence takes into account the exigencies of people born into bad situations, it doesn't lead people into damnation for being born where they are, with no possibility of salvation. If you believe God damns people simply for being in a situation where they can never hear the Gospel, people will doubt, with good reason, that God is just.
before the beginning of the Earth God put every human being through every scenario of life with all it's tempations, and he knows who is His. If he chooses to put those who will be lost, totally out of the way of the Gospel, it is for their own good. Figure that one out for yourself.
God also gives people free will, he doesn't simply say - you will be born here, with no chance for salvation, you will burn forever, and it's for your own good.
That's absurd.
-
PereJoseph wrote: Since this whole issue troubles me and does not seem to have any definitive resolution, I should add that I am not just being rhetorical when I say that I am interested in an attempted rigorous argument here. I truly would be interested in seeing one; it would help me quite a bit.
It looks like you are not going to get much rigourous debate here just personal opinions, for that is all I've gotten thrown back at me, not one quote from an authority.
I had rigorous debates on the subject on Angelqueen, back a few years ago, and both sides learned much from each other. Those people on both sides of the debate have been thrown out of AQ, for one reason or another. It no longer has anyone left, I'm told even Dr. David Allan White was thrown out, so, Dr. Nadieimportante is in good company.
-
I think I'd take the opinions of people here over the mud-slinging that takes place at certain other Catholic forums whenever there is a debate.
When you're talking about something controversial like BoD and BoB, you're mostly going to get opinions, since to my knowledge the Church has never made it a Dogma to believe either way on the subject. That being said, many Saints and even Church figures believed in BoD, so according to your logic they would all be heretics. I think BoD can and does happen under certain circuмstances, and I believe this is probably what the Church believed as well.
-
It's "corrosive" to who? Who wrote that? Do you think that the Church did not know that there were unevagelized people in Asia, and Africa, and everywhere, before Coulumbus's discovery? Why did the popes never correct the dogmas to mention BOD, and all it's variants, in 2000 years?
Yes, they knew, and they also advanced the position of Baptism of Desire. The Popes have written about it. So it's not correct to act as though there's no Church authority behind it.
"Corrosive" to those that do not understand God's Providence. Do you think that God put those people out of reach by mistake? Anyone that does think that, has no concept of God's Providence. People can't even convert their neighbor, think some Indian on an island would listen.
Yes, it is corrosive, just as it is corrosive to Faith to take the Augustinian position that unbaptized babies go into the fire.
It's corrosive because Catholics believe that God is just and merciful, and doesn't create people for the purpose of damning them. Providence takes into account the exigencies of people born into bad situations, it doesn't lead people into damnation for being born where they are, with no possibility of salvation. If you believe God damns people simply for being in a situation where they can never hear the Gospel, people will doubt, with good reason, that God is just.
before the beginning of the Earth God put every human being through every scenario of life with all it's tempations, and he knows who is His. If he chooses to put those who will be lost, totally out of the way of the Gospel, it is for their own good. Figure that one out for yourself.
God also gives people free will, he doesn't simply say - you will be born here, with no chance for salvation, you will burn forever, and it's for your own good.
That's absurd.
Telesphorus wrote:
Yes, they knew, and they also advanced the position of Baptism of Desire. The Popes have written about it. So it's not correct to act as though there's no Church authority behind it.
Nadie answers:
If they knew "there were unevagelized people in Asia, and Africa, and everywhere, before Coulumbus's discovery", actually they knew from the time of Christ, why did the popes write the dogmas and NEVER added any qualifiers to "absolutely nobody can be saved", as all the dogmas on EENS say?? Show us where one pope authoritatively " advanced the position of Baptism of Desire", until then, you are just writing your own personal opinions. We can get that from any Protestant. Don't waste our time.
Telesphorus wrote: Yes, it is corrosive, just as it is corrosive to Faith to take the Augustinian position that unbaptized babies go into the fire.
Nadie responds: strawman, I never mentioned that erroneuos theory
Telesphorus wrote: It's corrosive because Catholics believe that God is just and merciful, and doesn't create people for the purpose of damning them.Providence takes into account the exigencies of people born into bad situations, it doesn't lead people into damnation for being born where they are, with no possibility of salvation. If you believe God damns people simply for being in a situation where they can never hear the Gospel, people will doubt, with good reason, that God is just.
Nadie responds: another strawman, I never said God is unmerciful or that he creates people to damn them. It is you who comes up with these warped conclusions.
Telesphorus wrote: God also gives people free will, he doesn't simply say - you will be born here, with no chance for salvation, you will burn forever, and it's for your own good. That's absurd.
Nadie answers:
What I wrote, you can find in the 1907 Catholic encyclopedia under Predestination. What you wrote is again another strawman, I never said God does not give people free will, I did not say that God says you will be born here, with no chance for salvation, you will burn forever, and it's for your own good. It is you who comes up with these warped conclusions.
You have no concept of God's Providence, read up on the subject and when you come back, bring with you quotes from authorities.
-
I think I'd take the opinions of people here over the mud-slinging that takes place at certain other Catholic forums whenever there is a debate.
When you're talking about something controversial like BoD and BoB, you're mostly going to get opinions, since to my knowledge the Church has never made it a Dogma to believe either way on the subject. That being said, many Saints and even Church figures believed in BoD, so according to your logic they would all be heretics. I think BoD can and does happen under certain circuмstances, and I believe this is probably what the Church believed as well.
In the Catholic system of knowledge, there is a hierarchy of truth, Dogma is the highest authority on truth, it is truth. If one can't quote any authoritative sources to back up a belief, then their belief is of no use to anyone.
-
The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
St. Tthomas never said that "one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB" . No one can become a Catholic unless they are baptized in water. Read the quotes from Mystici Corporus that I post 2 times. BOD is just splitting hairs, it can't say whether such as person is saved or not. The person is not baptized in water, therefore, he is not a member of the Church, but yet he is justified, what happens to him? No one can answer that question, nor prove that there has ever been such a person.
From the Summa:
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
One of the effects of baptism is the incorporation into the body of Christ. Thus, St. Thomas did write that BOB and BOD makes one Catholic.
-
You do not understand V2, if you believe that BOD was its root cause.
If you can change the clear dogmas of EENS to mean the completet opposite, like teaching the variants of BOD like implicit desire of those who do not want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and a soul of th Church which contains non-Catholics, you can change all dogmas. Vatican II is about changing dogmas "legally", evolution of dogma into something else.
What you state is a Dogma is not, it is an opinion. Again, put me on the Angelic Doctor's side. If he is a heretic, so am I.
-
In the Catholic system of knowledge, there is a hierarchy of truth, Dogma is the highest authority on truth, it is truth. If one can't quote any authoritative sources to back up a belief, then their belief is of no use to anyone.
Apply St. Thomas' position that BOB and BOD makes the receiver of BOB/BOD a Catholic and apply them to the quotes you base your opinion upon. You will see that BOB/BOD is not contrary to the Dogma that outside the Church there is no Salvation, since those saved by BOD/BOB are Catholics.
Do you really want to rest your salvation upon the pitch of con men like the Dimonds?
-
The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
St. Thomas never said that "one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB" . No one can become a Catholic unless they are baptized in water. Read the quotes from Mystici Corporus that I post 2 times. BOD is just splitting hairs, it can't say whether such as person is saved or not. The person is not baptized in water, therefore, he is not a member of the Church, but yet he is justified, what happens to him? No one can answer that question, nor prove that there has ever been such a person.
From the Summa:
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
One of the effects of baptism is the incorporation into the body of Christ. Thus, St. Thomas did write that BOB and BOD makes one Catholic.
Only the sacrament of baptism incorporates one into the Body of Christ, His Church. This "loophole" to EENS which you bring up above, was Dogmatically closed by Mystici Corpurus, (the church moves slow), St. Thomas not withstanding:
It is a dogma of the Church that to be a member of the Church one must be baptized in water. It is also a dogma of the Church that those who die outside of the Church are lost.
The dogmatically defined language could not be any clearer.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
In order to connect the dots let me paraphrase:
1) Outside of the Church there is no salvation, absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ (clearly dogmatically defined)
2) Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
3) Therefore, all the unbaptized are not members of the Body of Christ and are outside of the Church. The theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, is an attempt to answer the speculative question of what happens to a catechumen who is pre-sanctified (justified) before he is baptized, but dies before he can receive the sacrament of baptism.
Fr. Feeney said that he does not know where that person goes, and that neither do you. The BODer that knows his stuff, and the strict EENSer who knows his stuff, KNOW, that they can't answer otherwise. No one knows where such a person goes, or if there has ever been such a person at all, for the person is outside of the Church and yet he is justified. He can't be saved because he is outside of the Church, and yet he is sanctified, he can't go to heaven and he should not go to Hell if he's justified:
-------------------------------------------------------
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification, but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know, do you?
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
Bread of Life, (1952) by Fr. Leonard Feeney, pg 137
2)
-
Yet there has never been one example of a person saved by baptism of desire.
So when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, "This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise" . . . ?
Adam and Eve, the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets . . . St. John the Baptist?
-
Yet there has never been one example of a person saved by baptism of desire.
So when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, "This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise" . . . ?
Adam and Eve, the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets . . . St. John the Baptist?
They were saved by the old dispensation, but we shouldn't forget St. Justin Martyr said there "Christian" pagans.
-
Need BOD imply a guarantee of salvation? I mean, given that actual Baptism is itself no guarantee, why can't someone with BOD still end up in Hell?
A catechumen not yet baptised but with BOD, who committed a mortal sin and died without repenting of it, would end up in Hell.
Your earlier post: There can't be two 'degrees' of Baptism, or else all converts would be baptised immediately, before being instructed, in order to benefit from the 'extra grace' provided by the water. But it's not the case. God isn't limited by such things.
-
The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
St. Thomas never said that "one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB" . No one can become a Catholic unless they are baptized in water. Read the quotes from Mystici Corporus that I post 2 times. BOD is just splitting hairs, it can't say whether such as person is saved or not. The person is not baptized in water, therefore, he is not a member of the Church, but yet he is justified, what happens to him? No one can answer that question, nor prove that there has ever been such a person.
From the Summa:
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
One of the effects of baptism is the incorporation into the body of Christ. Thus, St. Thomas did write that BOB and BOD makes one Catholic.
Only the sacrament of baptism incorporates one into the Body of Christ, His Church. This "loophole" to EENS which you bring up above, was Dogmatically closed by Mystici Corpurus, (the church moves slow), St. Thomas not withstanding:
It is a dogma of the Church that to be a member of the Church one must be baptized in water. It is also a dogma of the Church that those who die outside of the Church are lost.
The dogmatically defined language could not be any clearer.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
In order to connect the dots let me paraphrase:
1) Outside of the Church there is no salvation, absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ (clearly dogmatically defined)
2) Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
3) Therefore, all the unbaptized are not members of the Body of Christ and are outside of the Church. The theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, is an attempt to answer the speculative question of what happens to a catechumen who is pre-sanctified (justified) before he is baptized, but dies before he can receive the sacrament of baptism.
So our Faith is based on loopholes?
Not everything a pope writes in an encyclical is dogma. Second, I think he was writing about the visible church. We cannot read the future and God's mind to know the non-Catholics that will receive BOD/BOB. So those that we, as humans, number among the Church are those that we know have been baptized.
You are making up dogma to support the Dimonds' fundraising efforts.
-
How would Fr. Feeney explain the salvation of the Good Thief (and Adam and Eve)?
-
I think the Catholics believe that Baptism of Desire occurs at death.
-
How would Fr. Feeney explain the salvation of the Good Thief (and Adam and Eve)?
They died under the old dispensation. There's really no explanation necessary, since the necessity of baptism for salvation by definition is part of the new covenant.
-
there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people
Yes. This is what Pelagianism and Semipelagianism do to the Faith. "They are good people," the argument goes. "How can they possibly be damned?" God's grace is accorded a secondary role (if any) in salvation. Divine Faith is replaced with mental assent.
-
Yes. This is what Pelagianism and Semipelagianism do to the Faith. "They are good people," the argument goes. "How can they possibly be damned?" God's grace is accorded a secondary role (if any) in salvation. Divine Faith is replaced with mental assent.
Believing that God can save people without water Baptism is not semi-pelagianism.
-
Yet there has never been one example of a person saved by baptism of desire.
So when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, "This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise" . . . ?
Adam and Eve, the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets . . . St. John the Baptist?
Your point was brought up earlier in the thread and answered by PereJoseph.
All the elect who came before the new covenant of baptism, were saved under the Old Covenent, which did not require baptism. They did not go to heaven, they went to paradise, the Limbo of the Patriarchs from Adam and Eve, the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets . . . St. John the Baptist, the Holy Innocents etc. Good Thief, none went to Heaven till Heaven was opened by Christ at the Ascenscion.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
-
The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
St. Thomas never said that "one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB" . No one can become a Catholic unless they are baptized in water. Read the quotes from Mystici Corporus that I post 2 times. BOD is just splitting hairs, it can't say whether such as person is saved or not. The person is not baptized in water, therefore, he is not a member of the Church, but yet he is justified, what happens to him? No one can answer that question, nor prove that there has ever been such a person.
From the Summa:
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
One of the effects of baptism is the incorporation into the body of Christ. Thus, St. Thomas did write that BOB and BOD makes one Catholic.
Only the sacrament of baptism incorporates one into the Body of Christ, His Church. This "loophole" to EENS which you bring up above, was Dogmatically closed by Mystici Corpurus, (the church moves slow), St. Thomas not withstanding:
It is a dogma of the Church that to be a member of the Church one must be baptized in water. It is also a dogma of the Church that those who die outside of the Church are lost.
The dogmatically defined language could not be any clearer.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
In order to connect the dots let me paraphrase:
1) Outside of the Church there is no salvation, absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ (clearly dogmatically defined)
2) Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
3) Therefore, all the unbaptized are not members of the Body of Christ and are outside of the Church. The theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, is an attempt to answer the speculative question of what happens to a catechumen who is pre-sanctified (justified) before he is baptized, but dies before he can receive the sacrament of baptism.
So our Faith is based on loopholes?
Not everything a pope writes in an encyclical is dogma. Second, I think he was writing about the visible church. We cannot read the future and God's mind to know the non-Catholics that will receive BOD/BOB. So those that we, as humans, number among the Church are those that we know have been baptized.
You are making up dogma to support the Dimonds' fundraising efforts.
Gunfighter wrote:
Not everything a pope writes in an encyclical is dogma. Second, I think he was writing about the visible church.
Nadie Responds: Mystici Corpurus is dogmatic. AND it was written precisely to condemn the false teaching that there is an an invisible Church, that includes non-Catholics.
Gunfighter wrote:
We cannot read the future and God's mind to know the non-Catholics that will receive BOD/BOB. So those that we, as humans, number among the Church are those that we know have been baptized.
Nadie Responds:
You just made that up. I already showed you from a dogmatic decree that only the water baptized are members of the Church, that EENS is dogmatic, and that no one knows if there has ever been a person that fits the bill of a non baptized but justified catechumen (BOD). You are just being obstinate.
-
Nadie Responds: Mystici Corpurus is dogmatic. AND it was written precisely to condemn the false teaching that there is an an invisible Church, that includes non-Catholics.
Gunfighter wrote:
We cannot read the future and God's mind to know the non-Catholics that will receive BOD/BOB. So those that we, as humans, number among the Church are those that we know have been baptized.
Nadie Responds:
You just made that up. I already showed you from a dogmatic decree that only the water baptized are members of the Church, that EENS is dogmatic, and that no one knows if there has ever been a person that fits the bill of a non baptized but justified catechumen (BOD). You are just being obstinate.
I see nothing that would make it dogmatic. However, even if it were, it is not written to address BOD/BOB. So to infer a dogma would be an error. Given the fact that St. Thomas among others taught BOD/BOB, Pius XII would have made a specific declaration to correct the teaching, if he meant to do so.
As is common for those that create novel dogmas, you take the orthodox and twist it to your pleasure. I do not know one priest that would say that you can rest assured that your nice neighbor will be saved despite practicing a false religion. I have sat through sermons for years that these priests that the con-artists deem heretics preach that being naturally good is not sufficient to save your soul. These same priests preach that your relatives that attend the NO Mass or protestant services are corpses in suits. So you rationale for basing your whole religion on the BOD issue is bogus.
-
Nadie,
First, let me thank you for motivating me to read Mystici Corpurus.
Second, I must ask, have you read it? It has nothing to do with BOD.
The ironic thing is that the Dimonds and their groupies are in the same boat as someone that is hoping for salvation based on BOD. In addition to invincible ignorance, a person must not have a mortal sin on their soul. Either they have never mortally sinned, or they have perfect contrition. Very few baptized Catholics have never mortally sinned. Those that have, very few have perfect contrition. Think about all the graces received through the Sacraments and still they do not reach this level of holiness.
Now, for the BOD candidate how likely is it that they would reach the necessary level of sanctity without the Sacraments? Very unlikely, thus I do not know one priest that would say don't worry, your mom may be saved in spite of being a heretic.
Now, to the Dimondites, how do you plan to save your soul with the Sacraments?
-
This AGAIN?
PereJoseph said:
Father Garrigou-Lagrange says that here -- in the fact that God continues to pursue unto efficacious grace and final perseverance the souls of His Elect but does not continue to pursue others, rather allowing them to die in sin -- is the location of the great mystery of predestination and its relationship with free will.
I can't believe you are a Feeneyite! You say you're French too; there are no Feeneyites in France. Of course, you're a French Canadian, but still. I've never heard of a Gallic Feeneyite. This is a purely American heresy.
Yeah, I said heresy. For some reason people never call Feeneyites heretics; yet baptism of desire is taught by the Council of Trent. Therefore it is a dogma, and that was why St. Alphonsus said it was de fide. However, since Feeneyites have convinced themselves Trent really doesn't say that, I suppose they are material heretics; if they're lucky. But they are heretics. It's not just one allowable opinion among many. It contradicts the greatest Council of the Church.
It is known that God gives everyone sufficient grace to save their souls. How do you square this with a virtuous native like St. Juan Diego, except one who lived before the missionaries came? True, it's possible there was no St. Juan Diego before the missionaries came. But it's permissible to speculate that there were, and if there were, God could have saved them without a priest to baptise them.
If you're going to accuse me of emotionalism, I think it will backfire. The Feeneyites puff themselves up as accepting hard truths that others can't swallow, but that's all it really is -- puffing themselves up. It's like what St. Louis de Montfort calls the "scrupulous devotees" of Mary, those being the ones who claim to love Mary but say they don't want devotion towards her to go too far. They may think they're more reasonable and unsentimental but actually they're just more blind and farther from the true spirit of God. You cannot give too much reverence to Mary, and to honor Mary is to honor God.
Catholics are not called upon to be "harder" than other Catholics; we are only called to be Catholic. This is not an Iron Man competition. Errors are on the right as well as on the left, and heartless uncharitable Jansenist-style Catholics make the faith into a thing of sweaty dread. As Tele says, it is corrosive. It drives people from the faith and repulses them. I am almost certain that Antichrist will present himself as an excessively strict Catholic rather than an excessively lax one like the VII "popes."
-
It is Catholic teaching that we do not know what souls have been damned, with the possible exception of Judas. This can't be true, if everyone that is not on a baptismal record is in hell.
-
A question here, and perhaps something to add to this discussion....
Why would non-believers care about going to Heaven or Hell, and on that note, Purgatory? Aren't Heaven , Hell, and Purgatory Catholic beliefs, and well realities for us.... so what do non-believers care about these things? They may sound unsavory to them, in the best example of a non-believer, but regardless , they still do not subscribe to salvation and judgment.
So the Church should be even more freely disposed to determine what is a mortal sin (based on tradition, theological exploration, and other such authoritative steps) in order to determine what it means when someone is "damned to the fires of perdition."
I think we all make a big fuss over being lenient on who and what groups can't go to hell, just as the Novus Ordites do. It's infectious. The modernism of V2 and NO is infectious, almost even to those who study the Catholic faith as rigorously as we do and traditional Catholics all over the world. We can become "too middle of the road" sometimes, just as much as we claim there can be errors on the maximum "hardcore" side and the minimalist "liberal V2 prot" side.
Of course, the actual judgment of a soul is reserved to God , OBVIOUSLY, because we are not Gods here on earth. BUT we can make very well placed determinations based on externals of people while we are on earth in order to see if they are going to hell or not.
-
Raoul76 wrote: I can't believe you are a Feeneyite! You say you're French too; there are no Feeneyites in France. Of course, you're a French Canadian, but still. I've never heard of a Gallic Feeneyite. This is a purely American heresy.
All of my family was educated in pre-Castro Cuba Catholic schools. They never heard anything but that absolutely no one is saved outside of the Church, that all non-Catholics are damned. They never heard of Fr. Feeney. It was all of them that kept telling me to study the subject deeper, as there is no such thing as all these excusese that save Protestants, Jews, heretic, Schismatics, and every other religion. That it was a liberal American invention. All through the centuries all the missionaries, not a one believed in BOD, the whole world, no laity ever heard otherwise than what my parents (I'm now 57) were taught. I think it is just in English speaking countries, specially the USA, which is a Protestant country, full of Catholics that had too lay low and hide "hard sayings", and so the priests brought out all these excuses (that were subjects of scholastic speculation in the ivory towers of priestly upper level academia) out to the public in the late 1800's to fit in with the powers that be. That is not the case with the majority of Catholics in the world who learned the faith from Spain, in Spain, all heretics were eliminated as enemies of the soul.
Yeah, I said heresy.
It's curious that not once on this thread has any defender of EENS as it is written, called a BODer a heretic, but, you are the third one here that calls me a heretic.
For some reason people never call Feeneyites heretics;
Not even the pope or Rome does it. The reason why they don't call them heretics is because they'd have to call 99.99% of Catholics though history heretics too. The reason is because scarcely any believer in BOD limits his belief to the BOD of the catechumen, therefore they are are living in a glass house and don't want to throw stones, raise attention to their real beliefs (salvation by: implicit desire of people that don't want to be Catholic or baptized, implicit faith, invisible ignorance, salvation of anyone that is "nice")
baptism of desire is taught by the Council of Trent. Therefore it is a dogma, and that was why St. Alphonsus said it was de fide.
This is old stuff that's been brought up a million times, (just like "what about the Good Thief?" which has been brought up three times just on this thread).
Post here where you think Trent taught BOD. In the words of Tuco Benedicto Pacífico Juan María Ramírez, "if you are going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
-
Gunfighter wrote: I see nothing that would make it dogmatic. However, even if it were, it is not written to address BOD/BOB. So to infer a dogma would be an error. Given the fact that St. Thomas among others taught BOD/BOB, Pius XII would have made a specific declaration to correct the teaching, if he meant to do so.
St. Thomas taught against the Immacualte Conception. The dogmatic decree on the Immaculate Conception does not mention St. Thomas. If everytime a dogmatic decree was written, they had to mention all the people who taught the error, no one would ever find the decree in the forrest of names.
You are in denial. Mystici Corporus is saying in clear language that only baptized Catholics are members of the Body of Christ His Church, that is undenable, yet you ignore it completely and go on with your preconcieved notions.
In order to connect the dots let me paraphrase again :
1) Outside of the Church there is no salvation, absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ (clearly dogmatically defined)
2) Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.” (dogmatically defined in at least Mystici Corporus)
3) Therefore, all the unbaptized are not members of the Body of Christ and are outside of the Church. The theory of baptism of desire of the catechumen, is an attempt to answer the speculative question of what happens to a catechumen who is pre-sanctified (justified) before he is baptized, but dies before he can receive the sacrament of baptism.
All that the real BOD, the BOD of the catechumen, is doing, is answering a speculative question. I call it a ridiculous question, because in this speculation problem, they are just killing the person after he has been justified, and before God can baptize him, and then asking "what happens to him?". That is all BOD is. It does not save, and it does not condemn to hell and there is no proof that any such person ever existed! The American priests in the USA in the late 1800's brought out this speculation problem upon the public, it was on purpose, why it was never brought out before is obvious today, practically all Catholics today believe anyone can be saved in any religion.
Do you understand?
-
It is Catholic teaching that we do not know what souls have been damned, with the possible exception of Judas. This can't be true, if everyone that is not on a baptismal record is in hell.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
-----------------------------------------
I received this sheet at an SSPX Retreat House in the late 90's:
THE TEACHINGS OF THE FATHERS, DOCTORS AND SAINTS OF THE CHURCH UPON THE FINAL DESTINY OF MOST PEOPLE.
1) Notwithstanding assurances that God did not create any man for Hell, and that He wishes all men to be saved, it remains equally true that few will be saved; that only few will go to Heaven; and that the greater part of mankind will be lost for ever. (St. John Neuman)
2) It is certain that few are saved. (St. Augustine)
3) The majority of men shall not see God. (St. Julian the Martyr)
4) Those who are saved are in the minority. ( St. Thomas Aquinas)
5) The greater part of men choose to be damned rather than to love almighty God. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
6) So vast a number of miserable souls perish, and so comparatively few are saved. (St. Philip Neri)
7) Among adults there are few saved because of the sins of the flesh....With exception of those who die in childhood, most men will be damned. (St. Remigius of Rheims)
8) Death bed conversions/repentance-there are hardly any: Out of 100,000 sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely ONE will be saved. (St. Jerome)
9) The MAJORITY OF CATHOLICS GO TO HELL:
a) The greater number of Christians today are damned. The destiny of those dying on one day is that very few - not as many as ten - went straight to Heaven; many remained in Purgatory; and THOSE CAST INTO HELL WERE NUMEROUS AS SNOWFLAKES in mid-winter. (Bl. Anna Maria Taigi)
b) There are many who arrive at the faith, but few who are led to the heavenly kingdom. Behold how many are gathered here for today's Feast-Day; we fill the church from wall to wall. Yet who knows how FEW they are who shall be numbered in that chosen company of the elect? (Pope St. Gregory the Great)
c) The Ark, which in the midst of the Flood was the symbol of the Church, was wide below and narrow above, .... It was wide where the animals were, narrow where men lived; for the Holy Church is indeed wide in number of those who are carnal minded, narrow in the number of those who are spiritual.
( Pope St. Gregory the Great)
d) Shall we all be saved? Shall we go to heaven? Alas, my children we do not know at all! But I tremble when I see so many souls lost these days. See, they fall into Hell as leaves fall from the trees at the approach of winter. (St. John Vianney)
10) MOST PRIESTS GO TO HELL:
a) I do not speak rashly, but how I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are more numerous. ( St. John Chrysostom)
b) Most priest are lost and few bishops are saved, not because of what they do, so much as what they fail to do. (St. John Chrysotom)
c) Many religious go to Hell because they do not keep their vows. (St. Vincent Ferrer)
11) CATHOLICS NOT ASPIRING AND NOT LIVING AS SAINTS WILL GO TO HELL:
a) They who are enlightened to walk in the way of perfection, and through lukewarmness wish to tread the ordinary paths, shall be abandoned. (Bl. Angela of Foligno)
b) They who are to be saved as Saints, and wish to be saved as imperfect souls, shall not be saved. (Pope St. Gregory the Great)
c) St. Teresa.... had she not risen from the state of lukewarmness in which she lived, she would in the end have lost the grace of God and been damned. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
12) How many inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to say is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with it's thousands of inhabitants, not 100 people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! ( St. John Chrysostom - the city was Antioch and its inhabitants were known to be in pursuit of comfort and the good things of things life.)
13) A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell. (St. Anthony Mary Claret - It has been revealed that on the day of the death of St. Bernard there also died 79,999 other people, and of this total of 80,000 who died, only St. Bernard and two other monks were saved. So out of 80,000 dead, 79,997 went to Hell! )
14) In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
15) If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it. ( St. John Vianney)
16) He who goes to Hell, goes of his own accord. Everyone who is damned, is damned because he wills his own damnation. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
17) THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT THE FAITH CAN ALSO GO TO HELL:
a) When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without the faith, but not because of their sin of unbelief. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
d) No one is lost without knowing it, and no one is deceived without wanting to be. (St. Teresa of Avila)
18) OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THERE IS NO SALVATION:
a) No matter how praiseworthy his actions might seem, he who is separated from the Catholic Church will never enjoy eternal life (Pope Gregory XVI)
b) O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
-
Gunfighter wrote: I see nothing that would make it dogmatic. However, even if it were, it is not written to address BOD/BOB. So to infer a dogma would be an error. Given the fact that St. Thomas among others taught BOD/BOB, Pius XII would have made a specific declaration to correct the teaching, if he meant to do so.
St. Thomas taught against the Immacualte Conception. The dogmatic decree on the Immaculate Conception does not mention St. Thomas. If everytime a dogmatic decree was written, they had to mention all the people who taught the error, no one would ever find the decree in the forrest of names.
You are in denial. Mystici Corporus is saying in clear language that only baptized Catholics are members of the Body of Christ His Church, that is undenable, yet you ignore it completely and go on with your preconcieved notions.
Do you understand?
Do you understand? I already stated that St.Thomas could be in error. However, if I have to choose between the Angelic Doctor and you, guess what the wise Catholic would choose. Our Lord appeared to St. Thomas and praised his work. As far as I know, very few people buy into the Dimonds' con of BOD.
Have you read the encyclical? If St. Thomas could err, so could Pius XII, since the encyclical was not part of the extraordinary magisterium. Second, Pius XII refers to St. Thomas many times in the encyclical. Not once did he state that St.Thomas was in error. Third, the encyclical dealt with the visible and invisible church, it had nothing to do with the speculative question about BOD.
So at the end of the day, BOD is not a dogma. It is incomprehensible to the Catholic mind that you would put all of your salvation eggs in the BOD basket. Considering we agree that most Catholics go to hell. What is your destiny going to be, when you obstinately refuse to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments?
-
It is Catholic teaching that we do not know what souls have been damned, with the possible exception of Judas. This can't be true, if everyone that is not on a baptismal record is in hell.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907,
Do you recognize St. Pius Xth as a saint?
-
It is Catholic teaching that we do not know what souls have been damned, with the possible exception of Judas. This can't be true, if everyone that is not on a baptismal record is in hell.
Total strawman.
Post the sources for your ideas of Catholic "teachings", and you'll answer your own questions.
There are milions upon millions of baptized who were/are never on a "baptismal record". Who knows how many out there are baptized and don't know it, as infants by a neighbor. As adults after they passed out. A person could be baptized by a passer by just before death and no one saw it, or told the family.
That is one way to offer hope to non-Catholics.
Telling them that their non-Catholic Amish husband was a nice person and God would never condemn him, which is what all BODers will do today, is "more corrosive" to the Faith than any hard sayings.
“There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize, or latitudinize this
terrible dogma, ‘Out of the Church there is no salvation’...If we wish to convert
Protestants and infidels we must preach in all its rigor the naked dogma. Give them the smallest peg, or what appears so, not to you, but to them; - the smallest peg on which to hang a hope of salvation without being in or actually reconciled to the Church by the sacrament of penance, and all the arguments you can address to them to prove the necessity of being in the Church in order to be saved will have no more effect on them than rain on a duck’s back.”
(Orestes Brownson , Brownson's Quarterly review july 1874 pg 413-414)
-
There are milions upon millions of baptized who were/are never on a "baptismal record". Who knows how many out there are baptized and don't know it, as infants by a neighbor. As adults after they passed out. A person could be baptized by a passer by just before death and no one saw it, or told the family.
That is one way to offer hope to non-Catholics.
Telling them that their non-Catholic Amish husband was a nice person and God would never condemn him, which is what all BODers will do today, is "more corrosive" to the Faith than any hard sayings.
Talk about a strawman. LOL
All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
-
Gunfighter wrote: Do you understand? I already stated that St.Thomas could be in error. However, if I have to choose between the Angelic Doctor and you, guess what the wise Catholic would choose.
Strawman. The choice is not between me and St. Thomas. It's between the clear words of the dogmatic docuмent Mystici Corporis and fallible St. Thomas.
Have you read the encyclical? If St. Thomas could err, so could Pius XII, since the encyclical was not part of the extraordinary magisterium. Second, Pius XII refers to St. Thomas many times in the encyclical. Not once did he state that St.Thomas was in error. Third, the encyclical dealt with the visible and invisible church, it had nothing to do with the speculative question about BOD.
Yes I read it.
The docuмent is dogmatic, AND you are totally winging it here in saying "it is not part of the extraordinary magisterium".
So at the end of the day, BOD is not a dogma.
Most importantly, All that the real BOD, the BOD of the catechumen, is doing, is answering a speculative question. I call it a ridiculous question, because in this speculation problem, they are just killing the person after he has been justified, and before God can baptize him, and then asking "what happens to him?". That is all BOD is. It does not save, and it does not condemn to hell and there is no proof that any such person ever existed! The American priests in the USA in the late 1800's brought out this speculation problem upon the public, it was on purpose, why it was never brought out before is obvious today, practically all Catholics today believe anyone can be saved in any religion.
It is incomprehensible to the Catholic mind that you (someone )would put all of your salvation eggs in the BOD basket.
If you give them an excuse to not become Catholics, they will take it. read Orestes Brownsen above.
Considering we agree that most Catholics go to hell. What is your destiny going to be, when you obstinately refuse to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments?
Why did you ask me that? Are you presuming that I "refuse to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments"?
-
Why did you ask me that? Are you presuming that I "refuse to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments"?
He is apparently convinced that you are getting all of your material from the Dimond brothers.
-
Gunfighter wrote: All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
Today, practically all USA Catholics would asnwer something like that. Go out into the real world, go to Walmart, and ask them. Catch the few that even go to mass , in the Novus Ordo, as they are leaving the church. They have been taught this stuff since childhood:
From : Christ Among Us[/i], by Fr. Anthony Wilhelm. The major religious text for Catholic High School students and for adult education in America. First published in 1967 by Paulist Press, it has sold over 2,000,000 copies:
"There are other ways of being united to God besides baptism. Most of the human race has never heard of or cannot believe in Christ or baptism. As the world population increases, Christians become proportionately less. The Christian life begun by baptism is becoming more and more the privilege and responsibility of a few. Most of humanity is united with God in other ways. (op. cit., p. 199).
Many men come to God in this way through other, non-Christian religions ... So, too, one who cannot believe in a personal God, through no fault of his own, but is committed to following his conscience, receives God's grace presence God lives within many unbelievers, though they may oppose him or those who try to work for him. (p.200).
Theology has no complete answer as to how, or even whether anyone may be damned forever.(p. 289)
-
Why did you ask me that? Are you presuming that I "refuse to assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments"?
He is apparently convinced that you are getting all of your material from the Dimond brothers.
It looks like it is actually he who gets all his materail from the Dimond Bros. My foundations come from before even Fr. Feeney (as if he invented something new?). I'm sure you know that the Dimond's do not believe that one can be justified without water baptism. I don't go that route (though it may be true, they have no support from authorities to conclude that only), I don't need to:
All that the real BOD, the BOD of the catechumen, is doing, is answering a speculative question. I call it a ridiculous question, because in this speculation problem, they are just killing the person after he has been justified, and before God can baptize him, and then asking "what happens to him?". That is all BOD is. It does not save, and it does not condemn to hell and there is no proof that any such person ever existed!
That's the bottom line, and you won't be able to copy and paste that from the Dimond's website. I have read so many books on the subject that it would make your head spin. I have debated for years with excellent knowledgeable men who defended BOD. The driving force all these years in my work has been my elder family members (I'm 57), they always kept telling me, NO WAY, BOD, is a farse, a liberal lie, absolutely no one is saved outside of the Church, keep reading.
-
Why is the encyclical dogmatic?
-
Do you agree with the Dimond's that all of the traditional clergy are heretics?
-
Gunfighter wrote: All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
Today, practically all USA Catholics would asnwer something like that. Go out into the real world, go to Walmart, and ask them. Catch the few that even go to mass , in the Novus Ordo, as they are leaving the church. They have been taught this stuff since childhood:
The NO is not Catholic. Practically none of the traditional Catholics would agree that be naturally good is enough to get to heaven.
-
Gunfighter wrote: All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
Today, practically all USA Catholics would asnwer something like that. Go out into the real world, go to Walmart, and ask them. Catch the few that even go to mass , in the Novus Ordo, as they are leaving the church. They have been taught this stuff since childhood:
The NO is not Catholic. Practically none of the traditional Catholics would agree that be naturally good is enough to get to heaven.
The N.O. and the fallen away Catholics represent like 99% of Catholics.
-
Do you agree with the Dimond's that all of the traditional clergy are heretics?
I've been called a heretic three times on this thread alone.
Why are you so obsessed with the Dimonds?
-
Gunfighter wrote: All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
Today, practically all USA Catholics would asnwer something like that. Go out into the real world, go to Walmart, and ask them. Catch the few that even go to mass , in the Novus Ordo, as they are leaving the church. They have been taught this stuff since childhood:
The NO is not Catholic. Practically none of the traditional Catholics would agree that be naturally good is enough to get to heaven.
The N.O. and the fallen away Catholics represent like 99% of Catholics.
They represent 0% of Catholics.
-
Do you agree with the Dimond's that all of the traditional clergy are heretics?
I've been called a heretic three times on this thread alone.
Why are you so obsessed with the Dimonds?
I am not obsessed with them. Every Feeneyite I know follow the Dimonds. You may be the exception. If you are not affiliated with them, I stand corrected.
Are you a follower of them?
-
Gunfighter wrote: All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
Today, practically all USA Catholics would asnwer something like that. Go out into the real world, go to Walmart, and ask them. Catch the few that even go to mass , in the Novus Ordo, as they are leaving the church. They have been taught this stuff since childhood:
The NO is not Catholic. Practically none of the traditional Catholics would agree that be naturally good is enough to get to heaven.
The N.O. and the fallen away Catholics represent like 99% of Catholics.
They represent 0% of Catholics.
Then, in your world, there are maybe like 2 million Catholics in the world, and not 1000 million.
-
@nadieimportante:
So in 11 pages you've been successful at convincing... 0 people. :applause:
Keep it up- you're very convincing.
-
Do you agree with the Dimond's that all of the traditional clergy are heretics?
I've been called a heretic three times on this thread alone.
Why are you so obsessed with the Dimonds?
I am not obsessed with them. Every Feeneyite I know follow the Dimonds. You may be the exception. If you are not affiliated with them, I stand corrected.
Are you a follower of them?
Catholics follow truth. How does one go about following the Dimonds? Do they have churches, all over the world? Get real.
I posted a quote from a liberal here. When a liberal tells a truth better than I can express it, why should I ignore it? If the Dimonds did an intense study that coincides and adds to my studies, why should I not use it. They are not my enemy. They are not my boss. They are men just like I. I use information from everyone who writes truth. I'm not scared of being called a Feeneyite, Lefevbrist, Sede-vacantes, (or a Dimond-ite if that's what you want to call me). I respect all of those people for their courage to stand up for their positions, come what may. You won't see me following the crowd and linching whoever is of a different opinion. If it was me & the truth alone against the world, I would be more content as I would be if I had a bunch of brown-nosers following me.
God Bless,
Nadieimportante
Chrysostomite, Lefevbrist, Atila Guimaraes sede on the fence, Catholic seeker of truth (if you want to give me titles)
PS - and may God Bless the Dimonds, they have more testicular fortitude than all of their cowardly, follow the crowd, ad hominem detractors, put together.
-
@nadieimportante:
So in 11 pages you've been successful at convincing... 0 people. :applause:
Keep it up- you're very convincing.
I see you are a man of brief words. Keep it up!
-
But I'm just as efficient as you apparently. I will!
-
Here Nadieimportante- you should have a look at this:
Cathinfo.com Rules (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CathInfo-rules-refresher-and-summary)
Quote (Bolding is Matthews (the site owner) not mine):
CathInfo has a new cardinal rule:
"You may not post on CathInfo as an "outsider", or visit CathInfo as as "missionary". We are not a group of hell-bound heretics waiting for you to convert us with your bitter arguments and denunciations. "
Given that you are posting incessantly on this topic, and no where else, I would say you need to find another preaching ground. :detective:
Or stay, but drop your mission.
-
Gunfighter wrote: All BODers? It shows how you have lost touch with reality. I don't think I could find one that would say that.
Today, practically all USA Catholics would asnwer something like that. Go out into the real world, go to Walmart, and ask them. Catch the few that even go to mass , in the Novus Ordo, as they are leaving the church. They have been taught this stuff since childhood:
The NO is not Catholic. Practically none of the traditional Catholics would agree that be naturally good is enough to get to heaven.
The N.O. and the fallen away Catholics represent like 99% of Catholics.
They represent 0% of Catholics.
Then, in your world, there are maybe like 2 million Catholics in the world, and not 1000 million.
Yep. My religion and that of the Church Suffering and Triumphant is substantially different than the Novus Ordo.
-
Do you agree with the Dimond's that all of the traditional clergy are heretics?
I've been called a heretic three times on this thread alone.
Why are you so obsessed with the Dimonds?
I am not obsessed with them. Every Feeneyite I know follow the Dimonds. You may be the exception. If you are not affiliated with them, I stand corrected.
Are you a follower of them?
Catholics follow truth. How does one go about following the Dimonds? Do they have churches, all over the world? Get real.
I posted a quote from a liberal here. When a liberal tells a truth better than I can express it, why should I ignore it? If the Dimonds did an intense study that coincides and adds to my studies, why should I not use it. They are not my enemy. They are not my boss. They are men just like I. I use information from everyone who writes truth. I'm not scared of being called a Feeneyite, Lefevbrist, Sede-vacantes, (or a Dimond-ite if that's what you want to call me). I respect all of those people for their courage to stand up for their positions, come what may. You won't see me following the crowd and linching whoever is of a different opinion. If it was me & the truth alone against the world, I would be more content as I would be if I had a bunch of brown-nosers following me.
God Bless,
Nadieimportante
Chrysostomite, Lefevbrist, Atila Guimaraes sede on the fence, Catholic seeker of truth (if you want to give me titles)
PS - and may God Bless the Dimonds, they have more testicular fortitude than all of their cowardly, follow the crowd, ad hominem detractors, put together.
No reason to ignore it. However, you are not speaking the truth.
If following the popes and saints makes me a coward, sobeit. I would rather die as their friends, then friends of heretics.
Are you going to explain how you can take one sentence out of an encyclical and raise it to dogma?
-
Nadie Responds: Mystici Corpurus is dogmatic. AND it was written precisely to condemn the false teaching that there is an an invisible Church, that includes non-Catholics.
Gunfighter wrote:
We cannot read the future and God's mind to know the non-Catholics that will receive BOD/BOB. So those that we, as humans, number among the Church are those that we know have been baptized.
Nadie Responds:
You just made that up. I already showed you from a dogmatic decree that only the water baptized are members of the Church, that EENS is dogmatic, and that no one knows if there has ever been a person that fits the bill of a non baptized but justified catechumen (BOD). You are just being obstinate.
I see nothing that would make it dogmatic. However, even if it were, it is not written to address BOD/BOB. So to infer a dogma would be an error. Given the fact that St. Thomas among others taught BOD/BOB, Pius XII would have made a specific declaration to correct the teaching, if he meant to do so.
As is common for those that create novel dogmas, you take the orthodox and twist it to your pleasure. I do not know one priest that would say that you can rest assured that your nice neighbor will be saved despite practicing a false religion. I have sat through sermons for years that these priests that the con-artists deem heretics preach that being naturally good is not sufficient to save your soul. These same priests preach that your relatives that attend the NO Mass or protestant services are corpses in suits. So you rationale for basing your whole religion on the BOD issue is bogus.
We have seen definite quotes from Trent and MCC which say in plain language that the waters of Baptism are necessary for salvation. They even invoke the words of Christ as meaning exactly that.
Do you have a definitive quote from an authoritative docuмent which states the waters of Baptism are not necessary for salvation?
-
Here Nadieimportante- you should have a look at this:
Cathinfo.com Rules (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CathInfo-rules-refresher-and-summary)
Quote (Bolding is Matthews (the site owner) not mine):
CathInfo has a new cardinal rule:
"You may not post on CathInfo as an "outsider", or visit CathInfo as as "missionary". We are not a group of hell-bound heretics waiting for you to convert us with your bitter arguments and denunciations. "
Given that you are posting incessantly on this topic, and no where else, I would say you need to find another preaching ground. :detective:
Or stay, but drop your mission.
Yours is the typical modus operandi of a coward that can't defend his postion. Crucify him!
AND, Once again you use the word heretic, which has been leveled against me three times just on this thread, and I have NEVER mention about ANYONE here. You slander me by your false accusations.
Given that I started this thread, and it's getting a deluge of questions, isn't logical that i would be tied up mostly on this thread? Besides, I've posted on other threads. Are you suppose to be someone important here like a moderator or something?
-
However, you are not speaking the truth.
Where am I wrong?
If following the popes and saints makes me a coward, sobeit. I would rather die as their friends, then friends of heretics.
I didn't call you a coward.
And what you just wrote insinuates that you are following popes and saints, and I'm not? I quoted more dogmatic decrees from popes on one posting than all the quotes from popes and saints you posted (I think you only posted one quote by St. Thomas. and not a single quote form a pope.)
Are you going to explain how you can take one sentence out of an encyclical and raise it to dogma?
Show me what you are talking about.
-
Given that I started this thread, and it's getting a deluge of questions, isn't logical that i would be tied up mostly on this thread? Besides, I've posted on other threads. Are you suppose to be someone important here like a moderator or something?
You're right. You did start this thread. And the question you posed was already answered by you. There was never a want for any sort of discussion, apart from wanting to come to this thread with an agenda; this has been my reason for dialog with you. Your type are not welcome here.
At least PereJoseph, with whom I disagree with on this subject, doesn't come to this site with an agenda. Do you see me singling him out because I'm a "coward"? Nope- you're just dishonest.
-
Your type are not welcome here. you're just dishonest
There you go slandering me again. Prove where I'm dishonest. Who are you to tell me that I'm not welcomed here?
"A man can't lie, even to save the world". (Fr. Carl Pulvermacher)
-
Oh geeze. Find someone else to squabble with.
Your actions are dishonest and not welcomed on this board, as per the owner himself (whom I've quoted).
I'm an active member of this forum, and have been longer than you, and know that the spirit of this forum is against persons who come on here to solely debate issues like BOD, that's who I am. If you're honest about wanting to contribute here as a regular functioning member, see if you can lay off this topic for a while and prove you don't have an agenda.
:popcorn:
-
I'm an active member of this forum, and have been longer than you
Good for you.
-
We have seen definite quotes from Trent and MCC which say in plain language that the waters of Baptism are necessary for salvation. They even invoke the words of Christ as meaning exactly that.
Do you have a definitive quote from an authoritative docuмent which states the waters of Baptism are not necessary for salvation?
Gunfighter, did you miss this question from Pax?
-
Given that I started this thread, and it's getting a deluge of questions, isn't logical that i would be tied up mostly on this thread? Besides, I've posted on other threads. Are you suppose to be someone important here like a moderator or something?
You're right. You did start this thread. And the question you posed was already answered by you. There was never a want for any sort of discussion, apart from wanting to come to this thread with an agenda; this has been my reason for dialog with you. Your type are not welcome here.
At least PereJoseph, with whom I disagree with on this subject, doesn't come to this site with an agenda. Do you see me singling him out because I'm a "coward"? Nope- you're just dishonest.
So what he's got an agenda. What's your agenda?
-
Here Nadieimportante- you should have a look at this:
Cathinfo.com Rules (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CathInfo-rules-refresher-and-summary)
Quote (Bolding is Matthews (the site owner) not mine):
CathInfo has a new cardinal rule:
"You may not post on CathInfo as an "outsider", or visit CathInfo as as "missionary". We are not a group of hell-bound heretics waiting for you to convert us with your bitter arguments and denunciations. "
Given that you are posting incessantly on this topic, and no where else, I would say you need to find another preaching ground. :detective:
Or stay, but drop your mission.
Did anyone say that you weren't a Catholic?
Seems to me that you do a lot of missionary activity yourself.
-
So what he's got an agenda. What's your agenda?
No agendas.
-
Seems to me that you do a lot of missionary activity yourself.
Really? Where? Show me.
Your 24/7 links to eponymous flower make it easy to see why you just went on an emoting rampage by the way. :wink:
-
Seems to me that you do a lot of missionary activity yourself.
Really? Where? Show me.
Your 24/7 links to eponymous flower make it easy to see why you just went on an emoting rampage by the way. :wink:
I think you do have an agenda. I don't think you're capable of having a very big agenda, but you have an agenda. Everyone does.
It also sounds like you're projecting, and calling nadieimportante a heretic isn't what I'd call falling within the forum rules:
You agreed with this sentiment:
gunfighter said:
No one is denying the Dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. The point of contention is whether one can become a Catholic via BOD or BOB. St. Thomas says yes. You say no.
You do not understand V2, if you believe that BOD was its root cause.
Not one of your cites actually supports your position. One must make a logical jump to get to your position. Your position is not a dogma, it is an extrapolation made by a few.
No one that understands BOD would sit back and assume that their family and friends are safe. Those saved by BOD are far and few. As I recall, Father Sanborn told me that he doubts that anyone today would be saved by BOD.
I wonder how much time the Dimonds spend trying to convert non-Catholics? From my correspondence with them, I have concluded that it is all a scheme to get money and followers. They have to establish a pitch to pull Catholics away from th e Sacraments and follow them.
All Feeneyites are not necessarily followers of the Dimonds, however they are the main proponents of the heresy.
-
Your actions are dishonest and not welcomed on this board, Your type are not welcome here.
I'm an active member of this forum, and have been longer than you
Great debate tactic. Are you HallnOates?
-
Dear Gunfighter,
You asked if Mystici Corporis was dogmatic, which I said it was twice. I stand corrected, what I should have said was that it was infallible in the three quotes that I pulled from it and posted. In the Catholic hierarchy of truth, it stands in the second category below in that long list of quotes, that says :
In addition to the ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) proclamations of the popes, a Catholic must also believe what is taught by the Catholic Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Magisterium = the teaching authority of the Church).
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”
The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Outside the Church There is No Salvation, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by calling fallible, non-magisterial statements which contradict this dogma, as part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they aren’t.
Gunfighter wrote: I already stated that St.Thomas could be in error. However, if I have to choose between the Angelic Doctor and you, guess what the wise Catholic would choose. Our Lord appeared to St. Thomas and praised his work.
If St. Thomas could err, so could Pius XII, since the encyclical (mystici Corpurus was not part of the extraordinary magisterium.
Now that you see that Mystici Corporis "must be believed because it is proposed by the Church, in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed”, you will see that we have a contradiction.
Outside of the Church there is absolutely no salvation even if you shed your blood for Christ (dogma), and Mystici Corporis says that only the water baptized are members in the Body of Christ His Church. Therefore, all the unbaptized are outside of the Church, where it is dogmatically defined that absolutely no one is saved.
vs.
Your St. Thomas quote.
You see, it's not what "I say", it is reality taken from infallible decrees, EENS, and Mystici Corporis. So, we have a dilema. You can't just stick your head in the sand. What is the answer? In that answer you will find the truth.
___________________________________________________
or else all the dogmatically declared dogmas of EENS are to be understood as they are clearly written, for God's grace can convert stones, and getting water baptism is the easiest part of conversion.
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven. The very point of a dogmatic definition is to DEFINE PRECISELY and EXACTLY what the Church means by the very words of the formula. If it does not do this by those very words in the formula then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless. ANYONE who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. They who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by noninfallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of these infallible truths fallen from heaven. They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Holy Ghost to the re-evaluation of fallible human docuмents,thereby inverting their authority, perverting their integrity and denying their purpose.
All Nine dogmatic, Infallible, ex cathedra, definitions of the Holy Ghost
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implications of these pronouncements, taken together, are as follows:
1. All nine of these statements are dogmatic, infallible, ex cathedra definitions of the Church and of the Pontiffs who made them.
2. Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
5. Excluded also from this real and necessary membership are those who are unwilling to submit to the religious sovereignty of the Pope, though their faith be otherwise Catholic, and their morals laudable. All this means that the Church establishes the terms of membership within itself and is reasserting them by these decrease and no one else.
6. Similarly, the decrees exclude all exceptions whatsoever, and implied in them is the sanctioning of all subterfuges and excuses such as "invincible ignorance," "good will," "baptism of desire," and the like.
7. Since the aforementioned formula (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) is a doctrine of Catholicity, it is the standard of orthodoxy on the subject of salvation; which is to say, all writers, whether they be saints and/or Doctors, of old or of late, all popes and theologians, of whatever era, and their pronouncements are reliable in their treatment of this subject, if they accept and support it. Their testimony or opinions are useless (at best), if they do not, this regardless of any other contribution they may have made to Catholic erudition. The same must be said of the works of all Catholic writers.
8. Such a dogmatic statement is the most certain knowledge that men have, more certain than metaphysical principles, or mathematical formulas, or historical accounts. It is the revelation and proposition of God Himself.
9. Such a dogmatic statement is not to be colored, or reduced, or altered, by reference to the Sacred Scriptures. On the contrary, it is in terms of such a statement that all the Scriptures are to be read and understood.'
10. This doctrine is a mystery, as are all the sacred dogmas of the Faith. This means that it cannot be fully understood, nor adequately explained. As with other dogmas, were this truth self evident, or provable, or comprehensible, there would be little reason for the Church to define it.
11. The negative tenor of these definitions is to warn that any word, or artifice, or attentuation, which relieves every individual of the human race from the obligation of joining the Roman Catholic Church is condemned as contrary to divine prescription.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
14. The Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is described as fundamental or "'foundational" to Catholic theology. It is called the "Dogma of Faith," because, of a truth, unless a person accepts it in all its momentous absoluteness, he really does not accept the Catholic Faith, howsoever he protests that he does. Conversely, he who dilutes this doctrine to any degree, so radically distorts the Faith that he renders it null and void, and his own faith in the bargain. For he who denies this doctrine makes Catholicity hardly more than a nicety, as if membership in the Church were like the first class compartment on a commercial airliner, in which the majority of others will arrive at the same destination, really none the worse for their second class transport.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
16. When it is responded that certain individuals do not know that what they are hearing is God's word, the reply is: What is being said demands that careful inquiry be made. If the inquiry is made with the disposition of humility, integrity, and courage, the inquirer will find that the word cannot be denied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) proclamations of the popes, a Catholic must also believe what is taught by the Catholic Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Magisterium = the teaching authority of the Church).
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”
The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Outside the Church There is No Salvation, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by calling fallible, non-magisterial statements which contradict this dogma, as part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they aren’t.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio,
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope St. Pius V, Bull excommunicating the heretic Queen Elizabeth of England, Feb.25, 1570: “The sovereign jurisdiction of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, has been given by Him [Jesus Christ], unto Whom all power in Heaven and on Earth is given, the King who reigns on high, but to one person on the face of the Earth, to Peter, prince of the Apostles... If any shall contravene this Our decree, we bind them with the same bond of anathema.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 ;
Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
-
I do not particularly like long posts, as I am certain no one actually reads them. (At least, I am certain that I do not read them.)
Simple question: Does anyone have some statement from the Magisterium proclaiming that there is indeed salvation outside the Church?
-
I do not particularly like long posts, as I am certain no one actually reads them. (At least, I am certain that I do not read them.)
Simple question: Does anyone have some statement from the Magisterium proclaiming that there is indeed salvation outside the Church?
Of course not. However, that is not the question.
The question is whether BOD includes a person with the Catholic Church. St. Thomas replies yes. Dimonds and Nadie, no. Who to believe?
-
Dear Gunfighter,
You asked if Mystici Corporis was dogmatic, which I said it was twice. I stand corrected, what I should have said was that it was infallible in the three quotes that I pulled from it and posted. In the Catholic hierarchy of truth, it stands in the second category below in that long list of quotes, that says :
Since St. Thomas among many other theologians obvious disagree, it is not part of the ordinary magisterium. For it to be, there has to be universal agreement throughout the church over a long period of time.
-
Nadie Responds: Mystici Corpurus is dogmatic. AND it was written precisely to condemn the false teaching that there is an an invisible Church, that includes non-Catholics.
Gunfighter wrote:
We cannot read the future and God's mind to know the non-Catholics that will receive BOD/BOB. So those that we, as humans, number among the Church are those that we know have been baptized.
Nadie Responds:
You just made that up. I already showed you from a dogmatic decree that only the water baptized are members of the Church, that EENS is dogmatic, and that no one knows if there has ever been a person that fits the bill of a non baptized but justified catechumen (BOD). You are just being obstinate.
I see nothing that would make it dogmatic. However, even if it were, it is not written to address BOD/BOB. So to infer a dogma would be an error. Given the fact that St. Thomas among others taught BOD/BOB, Pius XII would have made a specific declaration to correct the teaching, if he meant to do so.
As is common for those that create novel dogmas, you take the orthodox and twist it to your pleasure. I do not know one priest that would say that you can rest assured that your nice neighbor will be saved despite practicing a false religion. I have sat through sermons for years that these priests that the con-artists deem heretics preach that being naturally good is not sufficient to save your soul. These same priests preach that your relatives that attend the NO Mass or protestant services are corpses in suits. So you rationale for basing your whole religion on the BOD issue is bogus.
We have seen definite quotes from Trent and MCC which say in plain language that the waters of Baptism are necessary for salvation. They even invoke the words of Christ as meaning exactly that.
Do you have a definitive quote from an authoritative docuмent which states the waters of Baptism are not necessary for salvation?
I quoted the Summa, isn't the Angelic doctor sufficient?
-
Dear Gunfighter,
You asked if Mystici Corporis was dogmatic, which I said it was twice. I stand corrected, what I should have said was that it was infallible in the three quotes that I pulled from it and posted. In the Catholic hierarchy of truth, it stands in the second category below in that long list of quotes, that says :
Since St. Thomas among many other theologians obvious disagree, it is not part of the ordinary magisterium. For it to be, there has to be universal agreement throughout the church over a long period of time.
You are still in the same predicament, for it is part of the ordinary magisterium that only the sacramentally baptized are in the Church, the pope was not saying anything new. Did you see anyone complain about it? Not a one! and it's almost 70 years old now.
Even if you believe as you say, you are still in the same predicament, for St. Thomas's teaching is not part of the universal and ordinary magisterium.
-
I quoted the Summa, isn't the Angelic doctor sufficient?
No. The Angelic Doctor, while he is by far the greatest theologian -- indeed, the greatest thinking person, period -- does not have the charism of infallibility. Aquinas can be over-ruled by a Council or a Pope. The most obvious example is his position on the Immaculate Conception, which was over-ridden by Pope Pius IX.
Do you have a docuмent from a Council or a Pope which states that being born again through the laver of regeneration is not absolutely necessary for salvation?
-
However, you are not speaking the truth.
Where am I wrong?
If following the popes and saints makes me a coward, sobeit. I would rather die as their friends, then friends of heretics.
I didn't call you a coward.
And what you just wrote insinuates that you are following popes and saints, and I'm not? I quoted more dogmatic decrees from popes on one posting than all the quotes from popes and saints you posted (I think you only posted one quote by St. Thomas. and not a single quote form a pope.)
Are you going to explain how you can take one sentence out of an encyclical and raise it to dogma?
Show me what you are talking about.
Let me try one more time.
No one debates the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
The saints teach that a person can die in the Church via BOD/BOB.
You take one sentence out of a fallible encyclical and base your judgment upon it. FWIW, I am not saying Pope Pius XII erred, but it is possible. What I am saying is that the encyclical was not written to address BOD. It was written to address ecuмenism. The Church Militant is the visible church. From our perspective, it does not include those that will be included at their death by BOD. Why? Because they are not visible to our eyes, since we cannot read their souls.
Pope Pius XII knew about BOD. If he meant to declare it a heresy, he would have had to do so in a formal ex cathedra pronouncement. He obviously did not. So it is illogical and erroneous to pull a single sentence out of an encyclical and make it a solemn pronouncement.
Your slippery slope argument is also wrong. Keep in mind that this is not a NO audience. We do not believe in ecuмenism. The boys that your are trying to carry water for have condemned all of the traditional clergy as heretics. Go to traditonalcatholicsermons.com Listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermons on naturalism, the Spirit of Faith, the NO, etc. Then come back and try to make a case that he believes that you can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Try to make the case that he proposes that the Amish dude is going to heaven. Just try.
The bottom line is that it is simply a sales pitch to support the Dimonds. They are running out of money and need new sheep.
-
I quoted the Summa, isn't the Angelic doctor sufficient?
No. The Angelic Doctor, while he is by far the greatest theologian -- indeed, the greatest thinking person, period -- does not have the charism of infallibility. Aquinas can be over-ruled by a Council or a Pope. The most obvious example is his position on the Immaculate Conception, which was over-ridden by Pope Pius IX.
Do you have a docuмent from a Council or a Pope which states that being born again through the laver of regeneration is not absolutely necessary for salvation?
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid. Therefore, you need to look at the teaching of the Church. For me, St. Thomas is the best place to begin.
The best case for the Dimondnites is that it is not settled, and one can believe that BOD is valid or that it is not.
-
nadieimportante, as long as BOD means that those who sincerely desire baptism actually get baptized before they die, then I believe in BOD.
From: The New Catholic Dictionary (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd06856.htm)
Providence
(Latin: providere, to foresee, provide)
Adapting means to an end, God in His Wisdom ordering every event so that the purpose of creation may be realized, and, in particular providing for every human being the means of working out his destiny and of serving and glorifying his Creator, Ruler, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Saint John Damascene calls it: "The will of God by which all things are ruled by right reason." It leaves no room for chance or for fate. It is the personal act of God in regard to man. It is the expression of His relation to us as Father. "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things." (Matthew 6) It is our reason and motive for prayer, as taught by Christ in the "Our Father." It is God's hand leading us on, invisible especially in moments of trial and darkness, but visible, as Cardinal Newman says in Parochial Sermons I, when we can look back and account for the happenings that have influenced our lives and enabled us to go on in God's service. In volume V he says it is nearly the only doctrine held with real assent [approval] by the mass of religious Englishmen, which seems to be true generally of Christians who are not members of the Church Christ founded.
FWIW, The Archbishop who was the instrumental cause of the whole "Boston Heresy Case" and initiated everything else against Fr. Feeney was Archbishop Richard James Cushing. According to wikepedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing) At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.
Nice guy hey? Gives a little bit of insight as to what Fr. and the Church was up against even back then.
Hollywood's wonderful depiction of BOD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6LHWyaeEHY
-
nadieimportante, as long as BOD means that those who sincerely desire baptism actually get baptized before they die, then I believe in BOD.
From: The New Catholic Dictionary (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd06856.htm)
Providence
(Latin: providere, to foresee, provide)
Adapting means to an end, God in His Wisdom ordering every event so that the purpose of creation may be realized, and, in particular providing for every human being the means of working out his destiny and of serving and glorifying his Creator, Ruler, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Saint John Damascene calls it: "The will of God by which all things are ruled by right reason." It leaves no room for chance or for fate. It is the personal act of God in regard to man. It is the expression of His relation to us as Father. "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things." (Matthew 6) It is our reason and motive for prayer, as taught by Christ in the "Our Father." It is God's hand leading us on, invisible especially in moments of trial and darkness, but visible, as Cardinal Newman says in Parochial Sermons I, when we can look back and account for the happenings that have influenced our lives and enabled us to go on in God's service. In volume V he says it is nearly the only doctrine held with real assent [approval] by the mass of religious Englishmen, which seems to be true generally of Christians who are not members of the Church Christ founded.
FWIW, The Archbishop who was the instrumental cause of the whole "Boston Heresy Case" and initiated everything else against Fr. Feeney was Archbishop Richard James Cushing. According to wikepedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing) At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.
Nice guy hey? Gives a little bit of insight as to what Fr. and the Church was up against even back then.
Hollywood's wonderful depiction of BOD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6LHWyaeEHY
re: nadieimportante, as long as BOD means that those who sincerely desire baptism actually get baptized before they die, then I believe in BOD.
Agreed
-
Dear Gunfighter,
You asked if Mystici Corporis was dogmatic, which I said it was twice. I stand corrected, what I should have said was that it was infallible in the three quotes that I pulled from it and posted. In the Catholic hierarchy of truth, it stands in the second category below in that long list of quotes, that says :
Since St. Thomas among many other theologians obvious disagree, it is not part of the ordinary magisterium. For it to be, there has to be universal agreement throughout the church over a long period of time.
You are still in the same predicament, for it is part of the ordinary magisterium that only the sacramentally baptized are in the Church, the pope was not saying anything new. Did you see anyone complain about it? Not a one! and it's almost 70 years old now.
Even if you believe as you say, you are still in the same predicament, for St. Thomas's teaching is not part of the universal and ordinary magisterium.
Wow, where did you learn your theology. First, besides St.Thomas, others have brought up instances where Saints and catechisms taught BOD. Therefore, it was NOT UNIVERSALLY accepted.
Further, 70 years does not make a dogma. The Pope was not saying anything new in the context he said it. You are taking it out of context.
Let's take the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If Pope Pius IX, simply stated in an encyclical that the Blessed Mother was immaculate, it would not have sufficed. Here is a link to the bull Ineffabilis Deus: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
If Pope Pius XII intended to clarify the BOD teaching, he would have wrote a similar bull.
-
Dear Gunfighter,
You asked if Mystici Corporis was dogmatic, which I said it was twice. I stand corrected, what I should have said was that it was infallible in the three quotes that I pulled from it and posted. In the Catholic hierarchy of truth, it stands in the second category below in that long list of quotes, that says :
Since St. Thomas among many other theologians obvious disagree, it is not part of the ordinary magisterium. For it to be, there has to be universal agreement throughout the church over a long period of time.
You are still in the same predicament, for it is part of the ordinary magisterium that only the sacramentally baptized are in the Church, the pope was not saying anything new. Did you see anyone complain about it? Not a one! and it's almost 70 years old now.
Even if you believe as you say, you are still in the same predicament, for St. Thomas's teaching is not part of the universal and ordinary magisterium.
BTW, I am not in a predicament. For me whether BOD is a dogma, theologically certain or otherwise is irrelevant. It is a non-issue. I know that the invalidity of BOD is NOT a dogma.
It is only important to those that are trying to fund raise for the Dimonds. It is what they are hanging their hat on. Without it, they have no way to keep the doors of their phony monastery open.
-
Dear Gunfighter,
You asked if Mystici Corporis was dogmatic, which I said it was twice. I stand corrected, what I should have said was that it was infallible in the three quotes that I pulled from it and posted. In the Catholic hierarchy of truth, it stands in the second category below in that long list of quotes, that says :
Since St. Thomas among many other theologians obvious disagree, it is not part of the ordinary magisterium. For it to be, there has to be universal agreement throughout the church over a long period of time.
You are still in the same predicament, for it is part of the ordinary magisterium that only the sacramentally baptized are in the Church, the pope was not saying anything new. Did you see anyone complain about it? Not a one! and it's almost 70 years old now.
Even if you believe as you say, you are still in the same predicament, for St. Thomas's teaching is not part of the universal and ordinary magisterium.
Dear Gunfighter, you are still in the same predicament, you have a person who is outside of the Church becuase he has not been incorporated into the Body by the scarament of baptism, who you say is saved. A contradiction:
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way into the body, Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess.14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
This definition shows that only through water baptism is one incorporated into the Body of the Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation, even if one sheds there blood for Christ
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov.
22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to
the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the
sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of
the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe
through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and
the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the
kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is
real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
-
St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church taught.... (http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks15liguuoft/alphonsusworks15liguuoft_djvu.txt)
CHAPTER II.
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
1. With regard to its necessity, it should be known that Baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the sacraments.
Without Baptism no one can enter heaven.
Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. It is also the most necessary, inasmuch as no one is capable of receiving any other sacrament if he has not previously received Baptism. Hence, Baptism is called the gate of all the sacraments.
-
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid.
Woah! Time out there!
You cannot prove your point by appealing to the non-existence of a teaching -- especially when the Church has positively taught the necessity of the laver of regeneration.
-
Dear Gunfighter, you are still in the same predicament, you have a person who is outside of the Church becuase he has not been incorporated into the Body by the scarament of baptism, who you say is saved. A contradiction:
Do you intentionally misstate my position? I did not say that a person is outside the church without being baptized is saved.
For your position to be true, you must prove that BOD is invalid. To do so, you must prove that it is part of the magisterium of the church.
It has been proven that theologians did not agree. Thus, it is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium.
For it to be part of the extraordinary magisterium, you need to produce an ex cathedra pronouncement stating it to be.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.
-
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid.
Woah! Time out there!
You cannot prove your point by appealing to the non-existence of a teaching -- especially when the Church has positively taught the necessity of the laver of regeneration.
The church has not done so. My point is that at best it is not a settled issue.
-
Dear Gunfighter, you are still in the same predicament, you have a person who is outside of the Church becuase he has not been incorporated into the Body by the scarament of baptism, who you say is saved. A contradiction:
Do you intentionally misstate my position? I did not say that a person is outside the church without being baptized is saved.
For your position to be true, you must prove that BOD is invalid. To do so, you must prove that it is part of the magisterium of the church.
It has been proven that theologians did not agree. Thus, it is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium.
For it to be part of the extraordinary magisterium, you need to produce an ex cathedra pronouncement stating it to be.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.
Is the Pope merely another theologian in the Church. Every theologian in the Church can be of one mind and the Pope has the authority to over-rule them. Nor are theologians even remotely any part of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.
-
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid.
Woah! Time out there!
You cannot prove your point by appealing to the non-existence of a teaching -- especially when the Church has positively taught the necessity of the laver of regeneration.
The church has not done so. My point is that at best it is not a settled issue.
I disagree. The Church has dogmatically taught the absolute necessity of the laver of regeneration. Ergo, that is one point that is definitely closed. BOD speaks of salvation by bypassing the laver of regeneration. Hence, it has been dogmatically pronounced against.
-
Dear Gunfighter, you are still in the same predicament, you have a person who is outside of the Church becuase he has not been incorporated into the Body by the scarament of baptism, who you say is saved. A contradiction:
Do you intentionally misstate my position? I did not say that a person is outside the church without being baptized is saved.
For your position to be true, you must prove that BOD is invalid. To do so, you must prove that it is part of the magisterium of the church.
It has been proven that theologians did not agree. Thus, it is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium.
For it to be part of the extraordinary magisterium, you need to produce an ex cathedra pronouncement stating it to be.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.
Is the Pope merely another theologian in the Church. Every theologian in the Church can be of one mind and the Pope has the authority to over-rule them. Nor are theologians even remotely any part of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.
You do not understand papal infallibility.
How on earth can you say that theologians are not part of the ordinary magisterium? Why would the Summa be placed along side the Sacred Scriptures on the Altar at the Council of Trent, if it were meaningless?
-
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid.
Woah! Time out there!
You cannot prove your point by appealing to the non-existence of a teaching -- especially when the Church has positively taught the necessity of the laver of regeneration.
The church has not done so. My point is that at best it is not a settled issue.
I disagree. The Church has dogmatically taught the absolute necessity of the laver of regeneration. Ergo, that is one point that is definitely closed. BOD speaks of salvation by bypassing the laver of regeneration. Hence, it has been dogmatically pronounced against.
You do not understand Dogma.
-
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid.
Woah! Time out there!
You cannot prove your point by appealing to the non-existence of a teaching -- especially when the Church has positively taught the necessity of the laver of regeneration.
The church has not done so. My point is that at best it is not a settled issue.
I disagree. The Church has dogmatically taught the absolute necessity of the laver of regeneration. Ergo, that is one point that is definitely closed. BOD speaks of salvation by bypassing the laver of regeneration. Hence, it has been dogmatically pronounced against.
You do not understand Dogma.
Perhaps not. But this much I know is true: A teaching concerning faith and morals once officially taught by the Church can never be un-taught. Ergo, if the Church has declared (and indeed She has so declared) that the waters of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation, then She cannot at some later time declare those waters are no longer necessary. That much I know is true simply because I know the Church is indefectible.
-
How on earth can you say that theologians are not part of the ordinary magisterium?
Simply because theologians do not carry the charism of infallibility. If they merely re-state what a Pope has taught, then they avail themselves of the Pope's charism, not their own.
But, if theologians are indeed a part of the ordinary Magisterium, do I then conclude that the writings of Loisy, Tyrell, de Chardin, Rahner, Baum, et. all. are to be understood as being part of the Church's official teachings?
-
However, there is not one docuмent that infallibly states BOD is not valid.
Woah! Time out there!
You cannot prove your point by appealing to the non-existence of a teaching -- especially when the Church has positively taught the necessity of the laver of regeneration.
The church has not done so. My point is that at best it is not a settled issue.
I disagree. The Church has dogmatically taught the absolute necessity of the laver of regeneration. Ergo, that is one point that is definitely closed. BOD speaks of salvation by bypassing the laver of regeneration. Hence, it has been dogmatically pronounced against.
You do not understand Dogma.
Perhaps not. But this much I know is true: A teaching concerning faith and morals once officially taught by the Church can never be un-taught. Ergo, if the Church has declared (and indeed She has so declared) that the waters of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation, then She cannot at some later time declare those waters are no longer necessary. That much I know is true simply because I know the Church is indefectible.
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
-
How on earth can you say that theologians are not part of the ordinary magisterium?
Simply because theologians do not carry the charism of infallibility. If they merely re-state what a Pope has taught, then they avail themselves of the Pope's charism, not their own.
But, if theologians are indeed a part of the ordinary Magisterium, do I then conclude that the writings of Loisy, Tyrell, de Chardin, Rahner, Baum, et. all. are to be understood as being part of the Church's official teachings?
Nope. It is the totality of the teaching. I did not say St. Thomas was the magisterium. In said he was part of it.
-
Dear Gunfighter, you are still in the same predicament, you have a person who is outside of the Church becuase he has not been incorporated into the Body by the scarament of baptism, who you say is saved. A contradiction:
Do you intentionally misstate my position? I did not say that a person is outside the church without being baptized is saved.
For your position to be true, you must prove that BOD is invalid. To do so, you must prove that it is part of the magisterium of the church.
It has been proven that theologians did not agree. Thus, it is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium.
For it to be part of the extraordinary magisterium, you need to produce an ex cathedra pronouncement stating it to be.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.
So, what you are saying is that the only way that you won't will believe something is if it has been directly dogmatically condemned. Therefore, the pope would have to dogmatically directly define BOD and all it's variants, and condemn them.
Question: Where does the Church dogmatically teach that modus operandi of yours?
You are still in a predicament.
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
-
How on earth can you say that theologians are not part of the ordinary magisterium?
Simply because theologians do not carry the charism of infallibility. If they merely re-state what a Pope has taught, then they avail themselves of the Pope's charism, not their own.
But, if theologians are indeed a part of the ordinary Magisterium, do I then conclude that the writings of Loisy, Tyrell, de Chardin, Rahner, Baum, et. all. are to be understood as being part of the Church's official teachings?
Nope. It is the totality of the teaching. I did not say St. Thomas was the magisterium. In said he was part of it.
Is Loisy also part of the magisterium?
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
I read it as clarifying that water is the matter of Baptism. That some other substance may not be used. As only wheat can be used for hosts.
It is my position, that the Church would had made a clear and unambiguous statement rejecting BOD, if it intended to do so.
-
Dear Gunfighter, you are still in the same predicament, you have a person who is outside of the Church becuase he has not been incorporated into the Body by the scarament of baptism, who you say is saved. A contradiction:
Do you intentionally misstate my position? I did not say that a person is outside the church without being baptized is saved.
For your position to be true, you must prove that BOD is invalid. To do so, you must prove that it is part of the magisterium of the church.
It has been proven that theologians did not agree. Thus, it is NOT part of the ordinary magisterium.
For it to be part of the extraordinary magisterium, you need to produce an ex cathedra pronouncement stating it to be.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.
So, what you are saying is that the only way that you won't will believe something is if it has been directly dogmatically condemned. Therefore, the pope would have to dogmatically directly define BOD and all it's variants, and condemn them.
Question: Where does the Church dogmatically teach that modus operandi of yours?
You are still in a predicament.
For de fide issues, I believe the Church is unambiguous. God cannot deceive and neither can his Church.
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
I read it as clarifying that water is the matter of Baptism. That some other substance may not be used. As only wheat can be used for hosts.
It is my position, that the Church would had made a clear and unambiguous statement rejecting BOD, if it intended to do so.
and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema
sounds pretty clear and unambiguous to me
Now, please explain BOD in such a way that you do not "wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Thanks.
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
I read it as clarifying that water is the matter of Baptism. That some other substance may not be used. As only wheat can be used for hosts.
It is my position, that the Church would had made a clear and unambiguous statement rejecting BOD, if it intended to do so.
and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema
sounds pretty clear and unambiguous to me
Now, please explain BOD in such a way that you do not "wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Thanks.
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
I read it as clarifying that water is the matter of Baptism. That some other substance may not be used. As only wheat can be used for hosts.
It is my position, that the Church would had made a clear and unambiguous statement rejecting BOD, if it intended to do so.
and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema
sounds pretty clear and unambiguous to me
Now, please explain BOD in such a way that you do not "wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Thanks.
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
Ah! The old thief on the cross canard.
He was saved under the Old Law, which had not quite yet been fulfilled.
See here: http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html it was not until "the promulgation of the Gospel" (probably Pentecost or shortly thereafter) that Baptism, being one of the statutes of the New Law, became absolutely necessary.
-
Gunfighter wrote:
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
That's the 4th time that's been brought up and answered just on this thread!
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
I read it as clarifying that water is the matter of Baptism. That some other substance may not be used. As only wheat can be used for hosts.
It is my position, that the Church would had made a clear and unambiguous statement rejecting BOD, if it intended to do so.
and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema
sounds pretty clear and unambiguous to me
Now, please explain BOD in such a way that you do not "wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Thanks.
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
Ah! The old thief on the cross canard.
He was saved under the Old Law, which had not quite yet been fulfilled.
See here: http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html it was not until "the promulgation of the Gospel" (probably Pentecost or shortly thereafter) that Baptism, being one of the statutes of the New Law, became absolutely necessary.
Not at all, you can't pick and choose the application of a scripture. You have to be consistent.
For if you can read into John 3:5 that Christ limited God's ability to save a soul. You must also read into it that Christ meant it here and now, not at some point in the future.
Again, given that the Summa was on the altar at the Council of Trent. If the Council intended to condemn BOD. It would have done so unambiguously.
-
Gunfighter wrote:
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
That's the 4th time that's been brought up and answered just on this thread!
So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?
-
Gunfighter wrote:
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
That's the 4th time that's been brought up and answered just on this thread!
So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?
We posted authoritative sources, not opinions. It is to you the we should be saying "So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?". You have not posted one authoritative source for anything, but your one St. Thomas quote, which does not even have a source attached to it.
-
Gunfighter wrote:
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
That's the 4th time that's been brought up and answered just on this thread!
So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?
No. But you should agree with the Council of Florence.
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
-
Again, given that the Summa was on the altar at the Council of Trent. If the Council intended to condemn BOD. It would have done so unambiguously.
Like I asked before, where is this doctrine defined that something can only be wrong only if it is dogmatically directly condemned? The BOD offshoot variants of implicit desire of those that don't even want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance, didn't even exist at the time of Trent, and no one still has condemned them.
You are just winging it.
-
Not at all, you can't pick and choose the application of a scripture. You have to be consistent.
The application was decided by the Council of Florence.
For if you can read into John 3:5 that Christ limited God's ability to save a soul. You must also read into it that Christ meant it here and now, not at some point in the future.
That is a big fat non-sequiter.
Again, given that the Summa was on the altar at the Council of Trent. If the Council intended to condemn BOD. It would have done so unambiguously.
The Council of Trent most emphatically refuted BOD by anathematizing those who would thereafter hold differently than the absolute necessity of pure and natural water.
But, are you also asserting that by having the Summa on the Altar at the Council of Trent that the Fathers of Trent also upheld Aquinas's error on the Immaculate Conception?
Let us now see how consistent you are.
-
For if you can read into John 3:5 that Christ limited God's ability to save a soul.
Only you are reading " that Christ limited God's ability to save a soul". It's ridicolous for you to think that. You've just gone full circle back to the title/subject of this thread:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
You are in a vortex of confusion.
-
Where has the Church officially taught it? I have yet to see one docuмent.
The Church is not ambiguous in its teachings, since God cannot deceive. Thus, a de fide teaching is not made in the middle of a Pope's letter to the Bishops.
Given St. Thomas stature as a theological authority(read Leo XIII), would you not expect a formal denunciation of his position on BOD, if in fact it was de fide?
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
I do believe that was an official repudiation of Saint Thomas's position.
You see, I personally have never had BOD explained to me in such a way that it did not "wrest to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdon of heaven".
I read it as clarifying that water is the matter of Baptism. That some other substance may not be used. As only wheat can be used for hosts.
It is my position, that the Church would had made a clear and unambiguous statement rejecting BOD, if it intended to do so.
and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema
sounds pretty clear and unambiguous to me
Now, please explain BOD in such a way that you do not "wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Thanks.
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
Ah! The old thief on the cross canard.
He was saved under the Old Law, which had not quite yet been fulfilled.
See here: http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html it was not until "the promulgation of the Gospel" (probably Pentecost or shortly thereafter) that Baptism, being one of the statutes of the New Law, became absolutely necessary.
Not at all, you can't pick and choose the application of a scripture. You have to be consistent.
For if you can read into John 3:5 that Christ limited God's ability to save a soul. You must also read into it that Christ meant it here and now, not at some point in the future.
Sounds rather Protestant to me. The Church interprets the totality of the Scriptures through its Magisterium and through Her approved theologians. I, for one, am still troubled by the fact that the almost unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers is opposed to the idea of BOD and that there does not seem to be a clear and coherent way to interpret subsequent dogmatic definitions (such as those of the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent) if one is prepared to throw out the moral consensus of the Church Fathers. Yes, without the moral consensus of the theologians and the testimony and example of the great missionary saints, I am at a loss as to how the teaching of the Popes on the subject is not ambiguous. Thus, I have to rely on the Fathers and Saints here for the basis of my interpretation, otherwise I cannot hold to a coherent belief and would not know my Faith.
I really am sincere when I say that I would like this all to be explained sufficiently. Unfortunately, just like Pax, I, too, have never heard any explanation of BOD that doesn't sound like some emotionalistic metaphor wrested from the words of Christ. And for what purpose ? To make the Gospel more palatable to the bland mindset of middle-class urbanites, United-Statesians who enjoy the company of Protestant co-workers and relatives, and the college-educated nouveau riche who are eager to coddle the world in order to advance in it ? It just seems rather difficult to square with the words of the bearded patriarchs of our religion, who looked at the objective Truth soberly with hearts informed by contemplation, and wrote what they did because they cared about nothing but the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
Specifically, for an example of something that troubles me on this issue and makes BOD very difficult to believe, there is the question of Divine Providence. How does it function if God is unable or unwilling to send a bi-locating saint, a missionary, a random Catholic passerby, or an angel to baptise those who He has pre-sanctified ? Saint Thomas himself even said that we must believe that any good-willed native on an obscure island will be sent a missionary or an angel to preach the Gospel to him if he is truly of good will and free of mortal sins. That is to say, St Thomas believed it was necessary for all to have explicit Faith. This theory of BOD makes far more sense and is much more defensible -- but, of course, that is not the kind of classic BOD most people believe in today. To me, it seems that the teachings of St Augustine and St Thomas on Divine Providence, free-will, predestination, &c., would be destroyed by BOD. It seems to me that, if implicit faith BOD were true, we would have to throw out the legacy of the Church Fathers, the legacy of the XIIIth-century Scholastics, and the entire classic understanding of the sacramental universe pre-Ockham, and we would all have to become enthusiastic Molinists and disciples of the School of Salamanca -- in which case we should all start brushing up on our Rothbard and Tom Woods and von Mises and preach the Montalambertian gospel of Liberal Catholicism preserving the human rights of individuals with libertarian free wills.
Again, given that the Summa was on the altar at the Council of Trent. If the Council intended to condemn BOD. It would have done so unambiguously.
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Did not the Fathers of Trent, by having the Summa on the Altar, already decide the issue?
-
Gunfighter wrote:
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
That's the 4th time that's been brought up and answered just on this thread!
So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?
No. But you should agree with the Council of Florence.
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
What part of the Bull are you claiming supports your position?
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Yes, of course. I do not claim that anybody who holds to implicit faith is outside of the Church for doing so.
-
Gunfighter wrote:
Then Christ lied on the Cross to the Good Thief. For if there are no exceptions to John 3:5, then there are no exceptions.
That's the 4th time that's been brought up and answered just on this thread!
So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?
We posted authoritative sources, not opinions. It is to you the we should be saying "So are we supposed to agree with your spin on everything?". You have not posted one authoritative source for anything, but your one St. Thomas quote, which does not even have a source attached to it.
ST Part 3, Q66
-
PereJoseph wrote: Unfortunately, just like Pax, I, too, have never heard any explanation of BOD that doesn't sound like some emotionalistic metaphor wrested from the words of Christ. And for what purpose ? To make the Gospel more palatable to the bland mindset of middle-class urbanites, United-Statesians who enjoy the company of Protestant co-workers and relatives, and the college-educated nouveau riche who are eager to coddle the world in order to advance in it ?
I'm told many times that nice neighbor Chip Protestant, could have been saved by BOD. When I tell them that BOD can't save a Protestant that's already baptized, they look at me with a blank stare.
We'll how about invincible ignorance?
Well, what about a perfect act of contritrition?
I say, perfect act of contrition are only good if you intend to confess it to a priest.
Well, then, I don't, ah, are you a Feenyite?
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Yes, of course. I do not claim that anybody who holds to implicit faith is outside of the Church for doing so.
The only reason I entered this argument is the fact that the Dimonds have declared that everyone that are not in communion with them are destined to hell.
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Did not the Fathers of Trent, by having the Summa on the Altar, already decide the issue?
-
PereJoseph wrote: Unfortunately, just like Pax, I, too, have never heard any explanation of BOD that doesn't sound like some emotionalistic metaphor wrested from the words of Christ. And for what purpose ? To make the Gospel more palatable to the bland mindset of middle-class urbanites, United-Statesians who enjoy the company of Protestant co-workers and relatives, and the college-educated nouveau riche who are eager to coddle the world in order to advance in it ?
I'm told many times that nice neighbor Chip Protestant, could have been saved by BOD. When I tell them that BOD can't save a Protestant that's already baptized, they look at me with a blank stare.
We'll how about invincible ignorance?
Well, what about a perfect act of contritrition?
I say, perfect act of contrition are only good if you intend to confess it to a priest.
Well, then, I don't, ah, are you a Feenyite?
To paraphrase a Bishop Sanborn sermon, it does not matter if your neighbor is a good man if he shovels your snow, mows your lawn, if he is not Catholic he is going to hell.
How can anyone accuse him of using BOD to make the gospel more palatable?
-
Find me one Dogma of the faith, where the Church did not:
1. Specifically state the heresy and
2. Specifically condemn it.
According to the practice of the Church, it would have said something to the effect of:
Certain persons claim that a person may be incorporated in the Church via BOD/BOB. This docuмent authoritatively anathematizes anyone that holds the belief that someone can be saved without being baptized with water.
The Church would not create a dogma with one sentence in a encyclical written to address a totally different matter.
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Did not the Fathers of Trent, by having the Summa on the Altar, already decide the issue?
NO
-
Again, given that the Summa was on the altar at the Council of Trent. If the Council intended to condemn BOD. It would have done so unambiguously.
The Council of Trent most emphatically refuted BOD by anathematizing those who would thereafter hold differently than the absolute necessity of pure and natural water.
But, are you also asserting that by having the Summa on the Altar at the Council of Trent that the Fathers of Trent also upheld Aquinas's error on the Immaculate Conception?
Let us now see how consistent you are.[/quote]
Let see how consistent you are. Show me a papal Bull similar to the one establishing the Immaculate Conception as a dogma.
-
My friend, are you going to answer the question or not?
It is only fair that we take turns.
You first answer my question and then I will happily answer your question.
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Did not the Fathers of Trent, by having the Summa on the Altar, already decide the issue?
NO
And yet, you tell us, that merely by having the Summa on the Altar they did indeed decide the issue of BOD.
Why BOD and not Predestination or Divine Providence?
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Did not the Fathers of Trent, by having the Summa on the Altar, already decide the issue?
NO
And yet, you tell us, that merely by having the Summa on the Altar they did indeed decide the issue of BOD.
Why BOD and not Predestination or Divine Providence?
That is not what I am saying.
St. Thomas is the preeminent Catholic theologian.
St. Thomas seminal work was the Summa Theologica
The Church holds the ST in very high regard(on Altar at CT)
Thus, the Church would unambiguously correct any heretical error taught in the ST.
The Church did NOT do so with respect to BOD, thus one is not a heretic nor excluded from communion for not condemning those that hold the BOD position.
-
St. Thomas is the preeminent Catholic theologian.
St. Thomas seminal work was the Summa Theologica
The Church holds the ST in very high regard(on Altar at CT)
Thus, the Church would unambiguously correct any heretical error taught in the ST.
The Church did NOT do so with respect to BOD, thus one is not a heretic nor excluded from communion for not condemning those that hold the BOD position.
Besides your syllogism being a non-sequiter,** the Church did indeed pronounce an anathema on anyone who hold the underlying concept behind BOD.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
That is as unambiguous as it gets. In fact, it does not get anymore unambiguous than that.
And with that I have also answered your question to me.
** Your premises in no way prove your conclusion.
-
Saint Thomas's teaching on predestination and Divine Providence is also in the Summa, but, then again, Catholics are free to disagree with Saint Thomas in favour of the theory of some other Doctor of the Church, such as Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor himself.
My position exactly. Take either side, but until there is a definite pronouncement, neither side is outside the Church.
Yes, of course. I do not claim that anybody who holds to implicit faith is outside of the Church for doing so.
The only reason I entered this argument is the fact that the Dimonds have declared that everyone that are not in communion with them are destined to hell.
Well, as I told you earlier, I am pretty sure that nobody on this thread is a Dimond follower and I don't think you have any solid reason to assume otherwise.
Anyway, I do not know what to believe on this subject. All I know is what makes the most sense to me according to my understanding of other crucial points of theology.
As for Raoul's assertions of a desire for harshness and of not being sufficiently French, all I can say is that I have no inclination to turn Christianity into a hard, Jansenistic religion, I hate the orléanistes and French nationalist movement, and that I do not look to contemporary traditionaliste métropolitain circles as the basis for what to believe; rather, having been born Acadian French, I don't have to conform to the current practices in France in order to be French -- much less become more French -- and that I can be sufficiently Catholic and French through being influenced by the Church Fathers and Doctors and theologians, French history, and my own particular North American French heritage. Besides, I am not convinced that the popularity of implicit faith BOD in France is not itself an Americanisation, or that it is not itself a fad influenced by liberalism on the part of many early XXth-century French priests, and that it is not itself opposed to the prior common belief amongst the French. The Jesuit missionaries in Canada certainly didn't believe it.
-
Well, as I told you earlier, I am pretty sure that nobody on this thread is a Dimond follower and I don't think you have any solid reason to assume otherwise.
Anyway, I do not know what to believe on this subject. All I know is what makes the most sense to me according to my understanding of other crucial points of theology.
In another thread, Nadie is posting dockets relating to Dimond lawsuits. My guess is that he is fact a Dimondnite.
-
St. Thomas is the preeminent Catholic theologian.
St. Thomas seminal work was the Summa Theologica
The Church holds the ST in very high regard(on Altar at CT)
Thus, the Church would unambiguously correct any heretical error taught in the ST.
The Church did NOT do so with respect to BOD, thus one is not a heretic nor excluded from communion for not condemning those that hold the BOD position.
Besides your syllogism being a non-sequiter,** the Church did indeed pronounce an anathema on anyone who hold the underlying concept behind BOD.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
That is as unambiguous as it gets. In fact, it does not get anymore unambiguous than that.
And with that I have also answered your question to me.
** Your premises in no way prove your conclusion.
From the Council of Florence:
Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church. Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians; the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity.
See the difference.
The CT addressed this problem:
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI
Some of the sixteenth century reformers, while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV, xv).
It had nothing to do with BOD/BOB.
-
St. Thomas is the preeminent Catholic theologian.
St. Thomas seminal work was the Summa Theologica
The Church holds the ST in very high regard(on Altar at CT)
Thus, the Church would unambiguously correct any heretical error taught in the ST.
The Church did NOT do so with respect to BOD, thus one is not a heretic nor excluded from communion for not condemning those that hold the BOD position.
Besides your syllogism being a non-sequiter,** the Church did indeed pronounce an anathema on anyone who hold the underlying concept behind BOD.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
That is as unambiguous as it gets. In fact, it does not get anymore unambiguous than that.
And with that I have also answered your question to me.
** Your premises in no way prove your conclusion.
From the Council of Florence:
Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church. Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians; the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity.
See the difference.
The CT addressed this problem:
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI
Some of the sixteenth century reformers, while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV, xv).
It had nothing to do with BOD/BOB.
No doubt there is ome truth in what you say. But you cannot rule out the insistence by the Fathers of Trent that Christ's words could not be made into some kind of a metaphor.
Hence, I ask you once again: Please explain BOD in such a way that the words of Christ cited by the Fathers are not turned nto a metaphor.
-
St. Thomas is the preeminent Catholic theologian.
St. Thomas seminal work was the Summa Theologica
The Church holds the ST in very high regard(on Altar at CT)
Thus, the Church would unambiguously correct any heretical error taught in the ST.
The Church did NOT do so with respect to BOD, thus one is not a heretic nor excluded from communion for not condemning those that hold the BOD position.
Besides your syllogism being a non-sequiter,** the Church did indeed pronounce an anathema on anyone who hold the underlying concept behind BOD.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
That is as unambiguous as it gets. In fact, it does not get anymore unambiguous than that.
And with that I have also answered your question to me.
** Your premises in no way prove your conclusion.
From the Council of Florence:
Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church. Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians; the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity.
See the difference.
The CT addressed this problem:
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI
Some of the sixteenth century reformers, while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV, xv).
It had nothing to do with BOD/BOB.
No doubt there is ome truth in what you say. But you cannot rule out the insistence by the Fathers of Trent that Christ's words could not be made into some kind of a metaphor.
Hence, I ask you once again: Please explain BOD in such a way that the words of Christ cited by the Fathers are not turned nto a metaphor.
It is not my position to do so. I follow the teaching of the Church. I know that the Church has been very precise in condemning heresies. If BOD is a heresy, it would have specifically condemned it.
St. Thomas knew scripture better than you or me. He obviously did not see a conflict between John 3:5 and his position. I feel comfortable siding with the Angelic Doctor.
Before you bring out the old canard, let me nip it in the bun as my 6 year says. Before Ineffabilis Deus was published, I would have felt comfortable denying the Immaculate Conception. Afterwords, no and neither would St. Thomas.
-
Please prove that Jesus is not a purple people eater without turning John 1:1 into a metaphor
It is not my position to do so. I follow the teaching of the Church. I know that the Church has been very precise in condemning heresies. If Jesus is a purple people eater is a heresy, it would have specifically condemned it.
See? Your argument just doesn't work. If it was a sound argument then it would work no matter what teaching I substituted into the question.
So, how about showing somewhere where a Council or a Pope has actually endorsed BOD?
-
Please prove that Jesus is not a purple people eater without turning John 1:1 into a metaphor
It is not my position to do so. I follow the teaching of the Church. I know that the Church has been very precise in condemning heresies. If Jesus is a purple people eater is a heresy, it would have specifically condemned it.
See? Your argument just doesn't work. If it was a sound argument then it would work no matter what teaching I substituted into the question.
So, how about showing somewhere where a Council or a Pope has actually endorsed BOD?
No it doesn't, since no reputable theologian has taught your purple people eater analogy.
My analogy regarding the Immaculate Conception is applicable.
-
Nadie, did you sign up just so you could debate with people who believe in BOD?
-
Nadie, did you sign up just so you could debate with people who believe in BOD?
Look at all my postings outside of my thread. I've been stuck in the house with laryngitis, and so I could respond quick. Normally, I'm too busy to even be online. I have 5 children under tha age of 9. Goofing around on the internet is not a good thing for me.
I wish I could debate/discuss people on any subject in depth, so I can improve myself and learn from my adversaries, if you want to call them that. That's how you learn things. That's one reason why God allows false religions, it forces us to know our faith.
God Bless
-
Nadie, did you sign up just so you could debate with people who believe in BOD?
Look at all my postings outside of my thread. I've been stuck in the house with laryngitis, and so I could respond quick. Normally, I'm too busy to even be online. I have 5 children under tha age of 9. Goofing around on the internet is not a good thing for me.
I wish I could debate/discuss people on any subject in depth, so I can improve myself and learn from my adversaries, if you want to call them that. That's how you learn things. That's one reason why God allows false religions, it forces us to know our faith.
God Bless
Agreed. Debate sharpens the mind.
-
Nadie, did you sign up just so you could debate with people who believe in BOD?
Look at all my postings outside of my thread. I've been stuck in the house with laryngitis, and so I could respond quick. Normally, I'm too busy to even be online. I have 5 children under tha age of 9. Goofing around on the internet is not a good thing for me.
I wish I could debate/discuss people on any subject in depth, so I can improve myself and learn from my adversaries, if you want to call them that. That's how you learn things. That's one reason why God allows false religions, it forces us to know our faith.
God Bless
Agreed. Debate sharpens the mind.
Who's that Rabbi in your avatar? How can I put in my avatar?
-
Nadie, did you sign up just so you could debate with people who believe in BOD?
Look at all my postings outside of my thread. I've been stuck in the house with laryngitis, and so I could respond quick. Normally, I'm too busy to even be online. I have 5 children under tha age of 9. Goofing around on the internet is not a good thing for me.
I wish I could debate/discuss people on any subject in depth, so I can improve myself and learn from my adversaries, if you want to call them that. That's how you learn things. That's one reason why God allows false religions, it forces us to know our faith.
God Bless
Agreed. Debate sharpens the mind.
Who's that Rabbi in your avatar? How can I put in my avatar?
That is Curly of the Three Stooges photoshopped to be a Rabbi. I read that he was Jєωιѕн and I wondered how things would have turned out if he had gone on to be a Rabbi.
I put it in when I set up my profile, but I don't know how to edit my profile, so I can't help you there.
-
That is Curly of the Three Stooges photoshopped to be a Rabbi. I read that he was Jєωιѕн and I wondered how things would have turned out if he had gone on to be a Rabbi.
I put it in when I set up my profile, but I don't know how to edit my profile, so I can't help you there.
OK, I figured it out with what you told me. There's my Avatar.
Nadieimportante,
better known as Dr. Alfonso Bedoya, M.P.B.
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Did you read at least the first posting? St. Augustine disagrees with you. There are no accidents to God. Catechisms are fallible. So, is St. Augustine. So, you must go to other sources to answer the question.
If Reverend Billy Graham died yesterday without converting to Catholicism, do you think he will be saved?
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Did you read at least the first posting? St. Augustine disagrees with you. There are no accidents to God. Catechisms are fallible. So, is St. Augustine. So, you must go to other sources to answer the question.
If Reverend Billy Graham died yesterday without converting to Catholicism, do you think he will be saved?
You are confusing the slim possibility of something happening, with predicting that it actually occurred. Further, BG would have to convert prior to dying. You are also confusing BOD with apostasy. Being a prot, BG may have been validly baptized with water.
-
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority(a catechism) and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
We'd have no problem accepting the authority:
- if it was inline with what was said in the Council of Trent, but, the council of Trent never mentions anything about a catechumen who dies before he can be baptized.
- if it wasn't that it conflicts with innumerable dogmatic decrees
- that it conflicts with God's Predestination
- that it conflicts with God's Providence
- that the Fathers of the Church were against it ( and they were referring specifically to the catechumen)
- besides all that, the salvation of an unbaptized catechumen is all that the Catechism of Trent is talking about, and the entire catechism, and the Council of Trent clearly says everyone else is damned. Yet, 99% of all believers in so-called baptism of desire all believe that good Amish, Jews, Buddists, whatever, are saved by BOD. That’s the problem, not the theoretical salvation of an unbaptized catechumen. For every unbaptized catechumen that dies, there’s likely hundreds of millions of non-Catholic deaths.
The Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the Fathers, concluded in his three volume set on the Fathers.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
-
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority(a catechism) and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
If they "accepted it without flinching", they sure had a strange way to show it, by not allowing the catechumen an ecclesiastical burial!
It is a nice consolation to tell someone a theory whereby their dead, unbaptized catechumen relative may have been saved if he was pre-justified (BOD) , but the Church did not allow an ecclesiastical burial for the catechumens:
LITURGICAL TRADITION AND APOSTOLIC BURIAL TRADITION
Besides the clear testimonies of the fathers against the theory of baptism of desire, perhaps most striking is the fact that in the history of the Catholic Church there is not a single tradition that can be cited for praying for – or giving ecclesiastical burial to – catechumens who died without baptism.
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia-1907)
There you have the teaching of Catholic Tradition! No catechumen who died without the Sacrament of Baptism received prayer, sacrifice or Christian burial! The Council of Braga, in 572 A.D., forbade prayer for catechumens who died without baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gelasius had earlier confirmed the same Church discipline – which was the universal practice – forbidding Catholics to pray for unbaptized catechumens who had died. [208] This means that the belief in the early Church was that there was no such thing as baptism of desire.
The true teaching of apostolic and Catholic tradition on this topic is also seen from the teaching of the Catholic Liturgy, which all worshipping Catholics in the early Church acknowledged and believed: namely, that no unbaptized catechumen or unbaptized person was considered part of the faithful , and they were not allowed to attend the mass of the faithful. That unbaptized catechumens are not part of the faithful was held by all of the fathers, because it was taught to all Catholics in the liturgy.
The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.
It is very clear in your very missal that there are two parts of the mass. The mass of the catechumen (up to the end of the Gospel, or sermon, if one is given), at which end, the catechumen would have to depart from the mass, and the mass of the faithful, where the mysteries are celebrated.
This thorough understanding of the distinction between the faithful and the catechumen, the meaning of “words and descriptions” as always understood by the Church, will clearly show the following dogmatic statement means that no unbaptized person can be saved, because Catholic dogma has defined that no one is saved outside the one Church of the faithful.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’
-
Yet, 99% of all believers in so-called baptism of desire all believe that good Amish, Jews, Buddists, whatever, are saved by BOD.
This is at best a misrepresentation and at worst an outright lie. 99% of the members on this forum recognize the Novus Ordo as a false religion. Their belief that everyone is saved has no more bearing on Catholic theology than what a Hindu thinks.
Let's try to be honest, after all it is a virtue.
-
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority(a catechism) and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
If they "accepted it without flinching", they sure had a strange way to show it, by not allowing the catechumen an ecclesiastical burial!
It is a nice consolation to tell someone a theory whereby their dead, unbaptized catechumen relative may have been saved if he was pre-justified (BOD) , but the Church did not allow an ecclesiastical burial for the catechumens:
LITURGICAL TRADITION AND APOSTOLIC BURIAL TRADITION
Besides the clear testimonies of the fathers against the theory of baptism of desire, perhaps most striking is the fact that in the history of the Catholic Church there is not a single tradition that can be cited for praying for – or giving ecclesiastical burial to – catechumens who died without baptism.
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia-1907)
There you have the teaching of Catholic Tradition! No catechumen who died without the Sacrament of Baptism received prayer, sacrifice or Christian burial! The Council of Braga, in 572 A.D., forbade prayer for catechumens who died without baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gelasius had earlier confirmed the same Church discipline – which was the universal practice – forbidding Catholics to pray for unbaptized catechumens who had died. [208] This means that the belief in the early Church was that there was no such thing as baptism of desire.
The true teaching of apostolic and Catholic tradition on this topic is also seen from the teaching of the Catholic Liturgy, which all worshipping Catholics in the early Church acknowledged and believed: namely, that no unbaptized catechumen or unbaptized person was considered part of the faithful , and they were not allowed to attend the mass of the faithful. That unbaptized catechumens are not part of the faithful was held by all of the fathers, because it was taught to all Catholics in the liturgy.
The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.
It is very clear in your very missal that there are two parts of the mass. The mass of the catechumen (up to the end of the Gospel, or sermon, if one is given), at which end, the catechumen would have to depart from the mass, and the mass of the faithful, where the mysteries are celebrated.
This thorough understanding of the distinction between the faithful and the catechumen, the meaning of “words and descriptions” as always understood by the Church, will clearly show the following dogmatic statement means that no unbaptized person can be saved, because Catholic dogma has defined that no one is saved outside the one Church of the faithful.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’
The denial of a Catholic funeral and burial has to do with scandal. Just as the public sinner would not be granted a Catholic funeral.
It is an extremely remote possibility that the person would be saved. The Church does not want to communicate that the possibility should be relied upon. Therefore, they do not allow the funeral.
Only a fool would rely on BOD or perfect contrition for their salvation. Is it possible? remotely. Should you plan on it, no.
-
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority(a catechism) and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
If they "accepted it without flinching", they sure had a strange way to show it, by not allowing the catechumen an ecclesiastical burial!
It is a nice consolation to tell someone a theory whereby their dead, unbaptized catechumen relative may have been saved if he was pre-justified (BOD) , but the Church did not allow an ecclesiastical burial for the catechumens:
LITURGICAL TRADITION AND APOSTOLIC BURIAL TRADITION
Besides the clear testimonies of the fathers against the theory of baptism of desire, perhaps most striking is the fact that in the history of the Catholic Church there is not a single tradition that can be cited for praying for – or giving ecclesiastical burial to – catechumens who died without baptism.
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia-1907)
There you have the teaching of Catholic Tradition! No catechumen who died without the Sacrament of Baptism received prayer, sacrifice or Christian burial! The Council of Braga, in 572 A.D., forbade prayer for catechumens who died without baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gelasius had earlier confirmed the same Church discipline – which was the universal practice – forbidding Catholics to pray for unbaptized catechumens who had died. [208] This means that the belief in the early Church was that there was no such thing as baptism of desire.
The true teaching of apostolic and Catholic tradition on this topic is also seen from the teaching of the Catholic Liturgy, which all worshipping Catholics in the early Church acknowledged and believed: namely, that no unbaptized catechumen or unbaptized person was considered part of the faithful , and they were not allowed to attend the mass of the faithful. That unbaptized catechumens are not part of the faithful was held by all of the fathers, because it was taught to all Catholics in the liturgy.
The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.
It is very clear in your very missal that there are two parts of the mass. The mass of the catechumen (up to the end of the Gospel, or sermon, if one is given), at which end, the catechumen would have to depart from the mass, and the mass of the faithful, where the mysteries are celebrated.
This thorough understanding of the distinction between the faithful and the catechumen, the meaning of “words and descriptions” as always understood by the Church, will clearly show the following dogmatic statement means that no unbaptized person can be saved, because Catholic dogma has defined that no one is saved outside the one Church of the faithful.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’
The denial of a Catholic funeral and burial has to do with scandal. Just as the public sinner would not be granted a Catholic funeral.
It is an extremely remote possibility that the person would be saved. The Church does not want to communicate that the possibility should be relied upon. Therefore, they do not allow the funeral.
Only a fool would rely on BOD or perfect contrition for their salvation. Is it possible? remotely. Should you plan on it, no.
Very good answer Gunfighter. It seems like you really do restrict the possibility of BOD to the catechumen. A rare thing today.
-
Nadie wrote: Yet, 99% of all believers in so-called baptism of desire all believe that good Amish, Jews, Buddists, whatever, are saved by BOD.
Gunfighter responded: This is at best a misrepresentation and at worst an outright lie. 99% of the members on this forum recognize the Novus Ordo as a false religion. Their belief that everyone is saved has no more bearing on Catholic theology than what a Hindu thinks. Let's try to be honest, after all it is a virtue.
Nadie responds: I am being honest. I could quote the icons of the traditional movement saying that non-Catholics can be saved by one of the many variants of BOD, that Jews, Protetants, Muslims Hindus, whatever can be saved by one of the variants or the other.
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Did you read at least the first posting? St. Augustine disagrees with you. There are no accidents to God. Catechisms are fallible. So, is St. Augustine. So, you must go to other sources to answer the question.
If Reverend Billy Graham died yesterday without converting to Catholicism, do you think he will be saved?
St. Augustine was a fallible man. Saints weren't always right.
-
Nadie wrote: Yet, 99% of all believers in so-called baptism of desire all believe that good Amish, Jews, Buddists, whatever, are saved by BOD.
Gunfighter responded: This is at best a misrepresentation and at worst an outright lie. 99% of the members on this forum recognize the Novus Ordo as a false religion. Their belief that everyone is saved has no more bearing on Catholic theology than what a Hindu thinks. Let's try to be honest, after all it is a virtue.
Nadie responds: I am being honest. I could quote the icons of the traditional movement saying that non-Catholics can be saved by one of the many variants of BOD, that Jews, Protetants, Muslims Hindus, whatever can be saved by one of the variants or the other.
I do not know of any Traditional Catholic priest that would say that would claim that it is probable that a heretic is saved. A remote possibility is different than canonizing a person.
-
Nadie wrote: Yet, 99% of all believers in so-called baptism of desire all believe that good Amish, Jews, Buddists, whatever, are saved by BOD.
Gunfighter responded: This is at best a misrepresentation and at worst an outright lie. 99% of the members on this forum recognize the Novus Ordo as a false religion. Their belief that everyone is saved has no more bearing on Catholic theology than what a Hindu thinks. Let's try to be honest, after all it is a virtue.
Nadie responds: I am being honest. I could quote the icons of the traditional movement saying that non-Catholics can be saved by one of the many variants of BOD, that Jews, Protetants, Muslims Hindus, whatever can be saved by one of the variants or the other.
Listen to these sermons and then explain how you can reconcile it to your statement:
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/BishopSanbornSermonArchive/BpSan_TheSpiritOfFaith_04-30-00_1618.mp3
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/BishopSanbornSermonArchive/BpSan_ErrorOfReligiousLiberty_11-19-95_1318.mp3
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/FrBenHug_Catechism24_Baptism.mp3
To quote Father Hughes, CMRI, speaking of a person being saved by BOD "unquestionably that is going to be rare."
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Finally you guys are starting to make sense on this topic.
Still, can you explain BOD in such a way that t does not make a metaphor out of Christ's words to Nicodemus in John 3?
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Finally you guys are starting to make sense on this topic.
Still, can you explain BOD in such a way that t does not make a metaphor out of Christ's words to Nicodemus in John 3?
Can you explain the Trinity to me?
Just because a person can't explain it, does not make it not true.
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Finally you guys are starting to make sense on this topic.
Still, can you explain BOD in such a way that t does not make a metaphor out of Christ's words to Nicodemus in John 3?
Can you explain the Trinity to me?
Just because a person can't explain it, does not make it not true.
Again, you demonstrate that you are unable to argue apples with apples.
If someone turned the doctrine of the Trinity into a metaphor then he would also have a lot of splainin to do.
Perhaps if I re-phrase my question.
If water is not necessary for Baptism, then what did Christ mean when He said: "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
-
No my point is that there are many things that do not need explanation. We can trust Holy Mother the Church. Remember your Act of Faith?
On its face, it would seem to be a contradiction. But so was Christ's advice for the man to sell all he owned and give it to the poor.
Specifically regarding your question, I am sure it has been addressed somewhere. However, I am not moved to take the time and effort to research it. Why not? Besides believing the Church as required, I also trust St. Thomas. St. Thomas knew the scripture. He also taught BOD. Therefore, he must not of had a problem reconciling the contradiction. That is good enough for me.
-
No my point is that there are many things that do not need explanation. We can trust Holy Mother the Church. Remember your Act of Faith?
On its face, it would seem to be a contradiction. But so was Christ's advice for the man to sell all he owned and give it to the poor.
Specifically regarding your question, I am sure it has been addressed somewhere. However, I am not moved to take the time and effort to research it. Why not? Besides believing the Church as required, I also trust St. Thomas. St. Thomas knew the scripture. He also taught BOD. Therefore, he must not of had a problem reconciling the contradiction. That is good enough for me.
Ok.
Let's try this again.
The Council of Trent attached an anathema to anyone who twisted the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.
Therefore, you can trust Holy Mother Church to anathematize you if you twistthe words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.
That is de fide.
You yourself have admitted that BOD is probably not de fide.
Maybe it is just senta certa or something like that.
But in my mind de fide trumps senta certa.
All of the explanations for BOD -- which is not de fide -- I have ever heard appear to twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- which it is de fide you cannot do.
Can to give me an explanation for BOD -- not de fide -- which does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- de fide you are toast if you do that?
Do you even understand what I am asking you to do for me?
Let me explain.
Please tell me how BOD, which is not de fide, does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor, which it would be a de fide anathema to do?
Thank you.
-
The special attention given to my last response reveals that it is the Achilles Heel of Nadie's erroneous position. I will have to explain more in detail....soon.
It's simply absurd to take the Feeneyite position and claim that egregious errors (if it really were absolutely the position of the Church that there is no salvation without water baptism it would go beyond the errors allowable for a Church catechism to say that catachumen deprived of Baptism could be saved - if something is not infallible it doesn't mean it can teach flagrant error. That's something that a lot of people don't understand - just because something the Church has taught is not necessarily infallible doesn't mean the Church can teach heresy) could be maintained in Church catechisms and by saints for centuries without them ever being corrected, condemned, etc.
-
The special attention given to my last response reveals that it is the Achilles Heel of Nadie's erroneous position. I will have to explain more in detail....soon.
Since you didn't read anything in this entire thread by your own admittance, how would you know if you got "special attention"?
-
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to wade through this entire thread. I will comment on the original poster's question by providing this quote from the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" ordered by Pope St. Pius V:
[section on baptism]
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
If anyone looks at the original surrounding context, the "accident" referred to is "death", not having a car accident which prevents one from attending his own baptismal ceremony that day!
Personally, I think there is something essential missing from anyone's Faith if he rejects both this authority and the fact that the whole Church accepted it without flinching.
Did you read at least the first posting? St. Augustine disagrees with you. There are no accidents to God. Catechisms are fallible. So, is St. Augustine. So, you must go to other sources to answer the question.
If Reverend Billy Graham died yesterday without converting to Catholicism, do you think he will be saved?
St. Augustine was a fallible man. Saints weren't always right.
You echoed what I wrote, my punctuation wasn't the best but read the bottom "Catechisms are fallible, so is St. Augustine".
-
Telesphorus wrote: if it really were absolutely the position of the Church that there is no salvation without water baptism it would go beyond the errors allowable for a Church catechism to say that catachumen deprived of Baptism could be saved - if something is not infallible it doesn't mean it can teach flagrant error.
A catechism can contain errors. What you wrote you just made up. You are totally winging it.
Besides, believing that a catechumen who dies by accident may be saved if they had the intention and determination to receive Baptism and repentance for past sins, is not as you call it "a flagrant error or a heresy.
First of all, you have to find a catechumen who died before he was baptized. Second of all, he would have to be pre-justified before receiving baptism (the ordinary means for justification is baptism). There may have never been such a person, and that quote from Trent would still be correct. AND if there ever was such a person it would be like a handfull of people who even fit the bill of a catecuмen who died before he can be baptized. This extra ordinary means of salvation applies to numerically speaking, practically no one, so, it's never been of any importance to even discuss it.
The problem today is all the MUTANTS that spring from BOD of the catechumen, like implicit desire, implicit desire of those the don't want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, and who knows what else they invented since I started writing this posting! The quote from the catechism of Trent actually stands as evidence against all of those false BOD's, for it requires explicit faith and an an explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic. Those MUTANT BOD's are the ones that 99% of Catholics believe, and yet they hide behind quotes like that answer on the Catechism of Trent, and St. Thomas, both of which do not teach the MUTANT BOD's.
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
-
The special attention given to my last response reveals that it is the Achilles Heel of Nadie's erroneous position. I will have to explain more in detail....soon.
Since you didn't read anything in this entire thread by your own admittance, how would you know if you got "special attention"?
Since I said that, I did. Did you ever think of that possibility?
If you had read it you'd realize that you got no attention whatsoever, relative to many others who got reams of material. you only asked a simple elementary question.
You never answered my simple question about Billy Graham. You didn't even read that?
-
You are trying to tell us all here that the Church allowed harmful things against the Faith to be spread throughout Christendom within the Roman Catechism. All Saints would reject such a notion.
Um...V2....the CCC.....the Novus Ordo Missae.......
Of course he thinks the Church allows harmful things against the Faith to be spread throughout Christendom.
I think so, as well. Where we differ is I don't think it takes an anti-Pope to do it.
Always remember that Pope Honorius was a true Successor of Blessed Peter, as was Pope John XXII, as were the Borgia and Renaissance Popes.
-
You are trying to tell us all here that the Church allowed harmful things against the Faith to be spread throughout Christendom within the Roman Catechism. All Saints would reject such a notion.
Um...V2....the CCC.....the Novus Ordo Missae.......
Of course he thinks the Church allows harmful things against the Faith to be spread throughout Christendom.
I think so, as well. Where we differ is I don't think it takes an anti-Pope to do it.
Always remember that Pope Honorius was a true Successor of Blessed Peter, as was Pope John XXII, as were the Borgia and Renaissance Popes.
None of those you mention spread harm throughout Christendom, doing nothing in any official law, liturgy or teaching. Pope Honorius was the only one who came the closest, but he still didn't, as he merely wrote a letter to a Patriarch in the east.
In the same way have the post V2 Popes acted. They have not bound the Faithful to believe any heresy, but they have allowed heresy to be promulgated from the pulpits. Also, they have stood idly by while the heresy of Americanism has virtually wrested the American Church into schism, and allowed the heresy of religious indifferentism to spread unchecked. At least, that is how I see it.
Nonetheless, they are true Successores of Blessed Peter. Not the best we have ever had. Quite possibly the worst. O, well, c'est la vie. I mean, somebody has to live under the worst Pope ever, just like somebody has to live under the best Pope ever.
-
Every single point that you made on your posting, every single one, is your own made up personal opinions, unsupported by any authoritive source.
Cupoertino wrote: The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation.
This is totally false. Prove it.
Cupoertino wrote: the doctrine of baptism of desire says that a person can be essentially a Catholic internally and may have never externally given any sign of it, yet, then died before externalizing it. It's dying somewhere in the middle of the conversion process.
False. Prove it. Your line, goes against the quote on Catechism of Trent that on BOD, that says it must be an externalized desire. You just got started and you are already denying the catechism, just like I said you would.
Cupoertino wrote: Official Church law allows any priest to offer Mass privately for a non-Catholic whom he discerns was in good faith. This is official recognition by the infallible Church that baptism of desire exists.
False conclusion on the "official recognition". Also, you'll have to prove the tradition that Church law allows any priest to offer Mass privately for a non-Catholic, that's likely a 20th century thing.
Nadie, you have the wrong idea about things being infallible. Infallible means that the author was protected by God from erring against Faith or Morals upon writing it. There are loads of non-infallible writings that became effectively infallible because the Infallible Church promoted them to all the faithful for their safe instruction. Safe means infallible because no error against Faith or Morals can be safe.
Strawman, and the whole thing is made up by you and False, you are totally winging it.
-
I mean, somebody has to live under the worst Pope ever, just like somebody has to live under the best Pope ever.
So what are the rules when living under the worst pope ever Pax?
-
Nadie,
With all due respect, you have stated that certain teachings are dogmatic which are not. I suggest you read a book on Dogmatic theology to learn about the different levels of certainty. You will also find very few things are actually de fide.
-
If there are very few things gf is there a list of them? This isn't meant as an attack, but there must be a list, right? Of course everything contained in the Creed, but what else?
-
No my point is that there are many things that do not need explanation. We can trust Holy Mother the Church. Remember your Act of Faith?
On its face, it would seem to be a contradiction. But so was Christ's advice for the man to sell all he owned and give it to the poor.
Specifically regarding your question, I am sure it has been addressed somewhere. However, I am not moved to take the time and effort to research it. Why not? Besides believing the Church as required, I also trust St. Thomas. St. Thomas knew the scripture. He also taught BOD. Therefore, he must not of had a problem reconciling the contradiction. That is good enough for me.
Ok.
Let's try this again.
The Council of Trent attached an anathema to anyone who twisted the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.
Therefore, you can trust Holy Mother Church to anathematize you if you twistthe words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.
That is de fide.
You yourself have admitted that BOD is probably not de fide.
Maybe it is just senta certa or something like that.
But in my mind de fide trumps senta certa.
All of the explanations for BOD -- which is not de fide -- I have ever heard appear to twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- which it is de fide you cannot do.
Can to give me an explanation for BOD -- not de fide -- which does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- de fide you are toast if you do that?
Do you even understand what I am asking you to do for me?
Let me explain.
Please tell me how BOD, which is not de fide, does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor, which it would be a de fide anathema to do?
Thank you.
I will try again. Many in the anti-BOD camp claim that those that believe in BOD are heretics and damned.
To hold this position, you must take one line out of the Council of Trent and interpret it like you do. You must also hold that the Catholic must know all the docuмents issued over time and interpret them as you do.
As an analogy, if a priest tells me doing "A" is not a sin, it is not sinful for me to act on his counsel. If "A" is in fact a sin, I am not culpable for the sin.
Now apply it to BOD. The Baltimore Catechism teaches BOD. St. Thomas teaches BOD. The Church has NEVER made a definitive pronouncement condemning BOD. Thus, even if BOD is not true, I do not sin by holding the position it is valid.
I firmly believe ... all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
-
The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation.
This is totally false. Prove it.
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/docuмents/singulariquadam.html
-
I mean, somebody has to live under the worst Pope ever, just like somebody has to live under the best Pope ever.
So what are the rules when living under the worst pope ever Pax?
Good question.
Follow the true Catholic Faith to the best of your ability, I guess.
But here is one thing you can hold to with moral certainty: No matter how bad a Captain is steering the Ark, if you jump off the Ark you most certainly will perish in the deluge.
So, hold to the Faith as best you know it and stay on the Ark.
-
I mean, somebody has to live under the worst Pope ever, just like somebody has to live under the best Pope ever.
So what are the rules when living under the worst pope ever Pax?
Good question.
Follow the true Catholic Faith to the best of your ability, I guess.
Excellent- I completely agree.
But here is one thing you can hold to with moral certainty: No matter how bad a Captain is steering the Ark, if you jump off the Ark you most certainly will perish in the deluge.
So, hold to the Faith as best you know it and stay on the Ark.
Or if, like on the titanic, if the Ark were already sinking, I would try to get onto a life boat as quickly as I could :wink:
-
The Baltimore Catechism teaches BOD. St. Thomas teaches BOD. The Church has NEVER made a definitive pronouncement condemning BOD. Thus, even if BOD is not true, I do not sin by holding the position it is valid.
I firmly believe ... all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
Now you are making sense. BOD is a theological possibility. (Please read the quote I cited from Bl. Pope Pius IX.) At the same time we cannot hold that anyone can be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church.
People like myself get their backs up when it is even implied that through BOD someone can be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church, or that invincible ignorance is some kind of Get_out_of_hell_free Card.
Does BOD fully incorporate one into the Roman Catholic Church?
-
Or if, like on the titanic, if the Ark were already sinking, I would try to get onto a life boat as quickly as I could :wink:
Problem is, it is impossible for the Ark to ever sink for it is held afloat by the positive will of Allmighty God.
Or do you not know the difference between the Ark and the Titanic?
-
BOD is irrelevant.
I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven
Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.
-
BOD is irrelevant.
I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven
Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.
See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.
I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.
So, while I never consider someone to be espousing heretical teachings by claiming there is such a thing as BOD, I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.
-
I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.
No one is saying that. Baptism, whichever the kind, brings a person in the Church. God will show mercy, upon whom he will show mercy. We cannot confine his mercy.
-
BOD is irrelevant.
I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven
Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.
See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.
I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.
So, while I never consider someone to be espousing heretical teachings by claiming there is such a thing as BOD, I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.
You are also missing the point that their is not a definitive statement defining BOD. Given that it is taught in the catechism, if it were heretical, the Church would have addressed it. It would not suffice to have one sentence in a relatively obscure docuмent address the question.
-
I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.
No one is saying that. Baptism, whichever the kind, brings a person in the Church. God will show mercy, upon whom he will show mercy. We cannot confine his mercy.
I agree. At the same time we cannot disregard the fact of His establishing a visible Church, and the condemnation of the notion of an invisible church. Also, we have been many wonderful signs to help identify the Elect. We cannot treat them as if they do not matter.
-
BOD is irrelevant.
I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven
Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.
See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.
I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.
So, while I never consider someone to be espousing heretical teachings by claiming there is such a thing as BOD, I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.
You are also missing the point that their is not a definitive statement defining BOD. Given that it is taught in the catechism, if it were heretical, the Church would have addressed it. It would not suffice to have one sentence in a relatively obscure docuмent address the question.
Nonetheless, the matter is also treated by some Fathers, Bl. Pope Pius IX, and the Council of Trent -- all of them admitting its possibility, all of them maintaining that the dogma of EENS cannot be circuмvented. Pope Saint Pius X in his catechism (not infallible as he was not yet Pope) spoke of the person being incorporated into the soul of Church (the soul of the Church being the Holy Ghost).
But, why do you even consider BOD when it is forbidden to inquire into whom it may have been applied? BOD is known to exist on the sole basis that we cannot limit the mercy of God. But to bring up the subject of BOD in such a way that it might cause one to doubt EENS is, well, a sin against faith. I am not saying that is what you did. I am just explaining whi I react the way I do to the subject of BOD.
-
I would be morally certain that someone was espousing heretical teachings by saying that those to whom BOD is applied are saved outside the Church.
No one is saying that. Baptism, whichever the kind, brings a person in the Church. God will show mercy, upon whom he will show mercy. We cannot confine his mercy.
I agree. At the same time we cannot disregard the fact of His establishing a visible Church, and the condemnation of the notion of an invisible church. Also, we have been many wonderful signs to help identify the Elect. We cannot treat them as if they do not matter.
Thus, I stated previously:
I have been baptized as have my wife and kids.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER counsel someone to rely on it.
Regardless of how BOD works, I would NEVER say anyone but a canonized(pre V2) saint is in heaven
Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Regardless of how BOD works, I do say that is highly probable that deceased non-Catholics, regardless if they are friends, families or strangers, are in hell, or euphemistically very crispy.
-
But, why do you even consider BOD when it is forbidden to inquire into whom it may have been applied? BOD is known to exist on the sole basis that we cannot limit the mercy of God. But to bring up the subject of BOD in such a way that it might cause one to doubt EENS is, well, a sin against faith. I am not saying that is what you did. I am just explaining whi I react the way I do to the subject of BOD.
I consider it, because it has been taught by the Church.
I did not bring it up. I only entered into the fray, so to speak, because it is being used as another means to split the remnant of the Church that exists. The Dimonds have been able to sway ignorant people.
If you read my posts, there is no way you can describe my position as harmful to EENS. Nor can you honestly say that the clergy that the Dimonds condemn do so either.
Following your logic, Christ should not have established the Eucharist, because it would be hard for many to accept.
BTW, do you accept JPII canonizations?
-
the remnant of the Church that exists
Only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be in the Church.
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
You are indeed entangled in the errors of Photius, who was the first to denounce the Pope (Nicholas I) as a heretic.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
And you are entangled in the errors of the Reformers, who were not the first to declare the Pope the Antichrist.
Yes, I accept the canonizations of JP2.
-
the remnant of the Church that exists
Only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be in the Church.
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
You are indeed entangled in the errors of Photius, who was the first to denounce the Pope (Nicholas I) as a heretic.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
And you are entangled in the errors of the Reformers, who were not the first to declare the Pope the Antichrist.
Yes, I accept the canonizations of JP2.
I am subject to a valid Pope.
-
the remnant of the Church that exists
Only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be in the Church.
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
You are indeed entangled in the errors of Photius, who was the first to denounce the Pope (Nicholas I) as a heretic.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
And you are entangled in the errors of the Reformers, who were not the first to declare the Pope the Antichrist.
Yes, I accept the canonizations of JP2.
I am subject to a valid Pope.
I am afraid to ask who.
-
the remnant of the Church that exists
Only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be in the Church.
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
You are indeed entangled in the errors of Photius, who was the first to denounce the Pope (Nicholas I) as a heretic.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm
And you are entangled in the errors of the Reformers, who were not the first to declare the Pope the Antichrist.
Yes, I accept the canonizations of JP2.
I am subject to a valid Pope.
I am afraid to ask who.
No reason to fear. I hold to the sedeprivationism theory.
-
Cupertino wrote: The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation.
Gunfighter wrote: Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Catholics when interrogated, must answer that the Church preaches that all those who die outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and without a doubt shall perish into the everlasting fire.
................................................................................
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
-
Nadie,
With all due respect, you have stated that certain teachings are dogmatic which are not. I suggest you read a book on Dogmatic theology to learn about the different levels of certainty. .
Little Grasshopper, what you just wrote is a strawman, and a slandering of my every quote. You need to give examples of what you are talking about.
You will also find very few things are actually de fide
Yes, very few "things" are actually de fide, compared to all the knowledge of the world, compared to all the writings of the Church, yes, very few things are actually de fide. However, there are reams of dogmatic absolute truths that the Church, the Holy Ghost, has provided us with to lead us with certainty to heaven. I posted Nine such truths just on EENS. The decrees on the absolute necesity of baptism fronm the Council of Trent are dogmatic, and the Athanasian Creed.
I also posted at least, what, like 20 decrees from the Universal Ordinary magisterium. I know what dogma is.
If you feel I made a slip somewhere, let me know specifically what you are talking about.
-
Cupertino wrote: The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation.
Gunfighter wrote: Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Catholics when interrogated, must answer that the Church preaches that all those who die outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and without a doubt shall perish into the everlasting fire.
................................................................................
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
-
nadie, may I suggest you MOVE ON from the BOD issue? It is an issue that has been discussed many times on this forum and it gets quite old. I get the feeling that BOD is all you really want to talk about on this forum.
Furthermore, you obviouly do not understand what Cupertino wrote. He said we can't say for certain that individual people are in hell, he wasn't talking about groups of people such as Jews, pagans, hinduists, buddhists, etc. If you think we are free to say for certain that individual people are in hell, then you're a heretic. You never know, maybe that person converted on his deathbed.
Those quotes have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of BOD, those quotes deal with the topic of salvation ouside the Church. Of course there is no salvation outside the Church, the point is people who desire to be baptized but were unable to can still be saved. This is what many Saints have taught.
-
Cupertino wrote: The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation.
Gunfighter wrote: Regardless of how BOD works, I would never say someone(except Judas) is definitely in hell.
Catholics when interrogated, must answer that the Church preaches that all those who die outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and without a doubt shall perish into the everlasting fire.
................................................................................
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Instead of worrying about HTML tags, why don't you pay attention to what others write.
People that receive BOD are in the Catholic Church. Therefore, if they are saved, the act does not conflict with EENS[/font][/size][/color][/i]
Did it help to use a different typeface?
-
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
As stated ad nauseum, it is very rare for a person to be saved by BOD. Thus, the assumption would be that most if not all of the Japanese were in hell. Per Catholic teaching, there is no way to free someone from hell once they have been judged.
-
If you think we are free to say for certain that individual people are in hell, then you're a heretic.
Prove I'm a heretic. that's the fourth person that's called me a heretic for something that all the Fathers taught. One shouldn't throw around that title like it's nothing. if I'm a heretic, and die that way, I'm without a doubt going to hell. always remember that before you call someone a heretic. In essence you'd be damning me to hell. AND with no proof!
Do you think that Confucius is a group? Do yuo think the St. Francis Xavier was talking about a group when he addressed the Japanese about their family members? I could post hundreds of similar quotes fro the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church.
If a person inquires about what happens to a Protestant (for instance) who dies outside of the Church, because he died rejecting the Catholic Faith and the pope, they are objectively telling you what the person died as. Then there is no doubt, they are outside of the Church. BOD and EENS are tied together, you can't discuss one without the other.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
-
Pax said:
See. That is the problem. I am insisting that the theological certainty of BOD must explicitly say that BOD fully incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church so that I do not deny the dogmatic certainty of EENS.
I cannot see any other way of reconciling the two teachings.
It does fully incorporate you into the Church. How many times do you have to hear this? A member of the Church by desire = a member of the Church.
-
If you think we are free to say for certain that individual people are in hell, then you're a heretic.
Prove I'm a heretic. that's the fourth person that's called me a heretic for something that all the Fathers taught. One shouldn't throw around that title like it's nothing. if I'm a heretic, and die that way, I'm without a doubt going to hell. always remember that before you call someone a heretic. In essence you'd be damning me to hell. AND with no proof!
Do you think that Confucius is a group? Do yuo think the St. Francis Xavier was talking about a group when he addressed the Japanese about their family members? I could post hundreds of similar quotes fro the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church.
If a person inquires about what happens to a Protestant (for instance) who dies outside of the Church, because he died rejecting the Catholic Faith and the pope, they are objectively telling you what the person died as. Then there is no doubt, they are outside of the Church. BOD and EENS are tied together, you can't discuss one without the other.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."
Saint Francis Xavier
Last time I checked, Pius X was a saint. Nadie explain yourself.
-
People that receive BOD are in the Catholic Church. Therefore, if they are saved, the act does not conflict with EENS
This has been refuted by innumerable times by Pax and I. You are going in a circle. Here I go again:
The theoretical person who is pre-justified before he receives baptism, then dies while still not commiting a mortal sin, but before he can receive baptism (the definition of BOD of the catechumen) IS NOT IN THE CHURCH, only the sacramentally baptized are members of the Body, the Church. Therefore, thiis theoretical person is not saved, but he is also not lost, since he is without sin (justified). Where he is, or if such a person ever existed, who knows? You don't.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
These two statements exclude the idea that one can be saved by even an explicit
desire for baptism, since they affirm that those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ. (Those who are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ cannot be saved.)
In other words, according to the pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, to assert that one could be a Christian or a member of Christ without the mark of baptism (which is what the theory of baptism of desire asserts) is akin to asserting that one can be a priest without ordination.
Here's some more material I didn't give you before:
The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. It is not an invisible
extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “ Leo XIII, Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to
state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her
soul.’”
Second, the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical
body, the Church (corpore mystico)…”Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His mystical Body.”
Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body. And this is without question an error.
A man can be either inside the Church or outside the Church. He can be either inside or outside the Body. There isn’t a third realm in which the Church exists – an invisible Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body, deny the undivided unity of the Church’s Body and Soul, which is parallel to denying the undivided unity of Christ’s Divine andHuman natures.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it
follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden
and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly
impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that
man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of
both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate
union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something
dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
The denial of the union of the Church’s Body and Soul leads to the errory that the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI and Pius XII.
Third, the most powerful proof against the “Soul of the Church” heresy logically
follows from the first two already discussed. The third proof is that the infallible
magisterium of the Catholic Church has defined that belonging to the Body of the
Church is necessary for salvation!
Pope Eugene IV, in his Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of the
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ. This destroys the idea that one canbe saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since
the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical
body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were
foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made
up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:
whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no
member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its
head.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and nonexempt,
belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at
all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is
fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same
will…”
Pope Clement XIV, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of
the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
-
Pax said:
Only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be in the Church.
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?
Okay, let me do a little syllogism for you, first of all, just to show you how badly you can be wrong and are wrong about sedevacantism, which hopefully will put you on the path of humility:
( a ) You have to acknowledge the supremacy of Peter to be in the Church
( b ) Popes can, through heresy, fall out of the Church, thus ceasing to be Popes, as taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and others
( c ) Saying that there is no Pope, because the man who claims to be Pope is a heretic, is not rejecting Peter
Now, let me say again, baptism of desire makes you a member of the Church by desire, along with all that entails, including submission to the Roman Pontiff. God sees the hearts and judges that a certain person WOULD submit to the Roman Pontiff if he weren't in invincible ignorance; therefore he is baptized by desire, he submits to the Roman Pontiff by desire, etc. The minimum necessary knowledge to be saved, according to many theologians, is that God exists and that He is a rewarder.
Other kinds of knowledge like the Trinity are also necessary to be known. But some things need to be known by IMPLICIT faith, and others by explicit faith. Also, you should read up on absolute necessity of means, and relative necessity of means.
-
Nadie, please answer my question. Why do you call Pius X "blessed"? Was it an honest mistake? Or do you reject the papacy of Pius XII?
-
Last time I checked, Pius X was a saint. Nadie explain yourself.
The quote comes from a book that is prior to Pius X being declared a saint.
-
Prove I'm a heretic. that's the fourth person that's called me a heretic for something that all the Fathers taught. One shouldn't throw around that title like it's nothing. if I'm a heretic, and die that way, I'm without a doubt going to hell. always remember that before you call someone a heretic. In essence you'd be damning me to hell. AND with no proof!
I wouldn't say you are a heretic. I would say you are mistaken. I would say that you have sinned against the virtue of charity. I would say that you presume to judge the state of the man's soul based on his outward appearance. When our Lord admonished us not to judge, he was referring to exactly what you are doing. Remember, you cannot necessarily judge a book by its cover.
It would not be judging, if you qualified your statement with something to the effect: "in all probability." It would also be appropriate to say that if a person dies as a infidel, they will be damned. You cannot say Mr. X died as a infidel, because you do not have the ability to read a man's soul.
-
It would not be judging, if you qualified your statement with something to the effect: "in all probability." It would also be appropriate to say that if a person dies as a infidel, they will be damned. You cannot say Mr. X died as a infidel, because you do not have the ability to read a man's soul.
The condemning is done by St. Francis Xavier, and the Holy Office under Piux X, for both said "person dies as a infidel, they will be damned". Are you criticizing them?
Read what I wrote, it is very precise. One has nothing "to judge", if a person tells you that their relative died as a heretic.
-
nadie, may I suggest you MOVE ON from the BOD issue? It is an issue that has been discussed many times on this forum and it gets quite old. I get the feeling that BOD is all you really want to talk about on this forum.
This is not the only subject that I really want to discuss. I have posted many threads already, and it just so happens that this is the only one asking me questions. Is there something wrong with discussing and debating a Catholic subject of such importance?
As long as people ask questions and debate, what am I expected to do, ignore them?
If you are a moderator, and don't want this subject discussed on this forum, let me know directly.
-
Prove I'm a heretic. that's the fourth person that's called me a heretic for something that all the Fathers taught. One shouldn't throw around that title like it's nothing. if I'm a heretic, and die that way, I'm without a doubt going to hell. always remember that before you call someone a heretic. In essence you'd be damning me to hell. AND with no proof!
I didn't say you are a heretic. I said IF you believe we can say for certain that individual people are in hell, then you would be a heretic. I don't know if that's what you believe, but it's what you implied earlier.
-
It would not be judging, if you qualified your statement with something to the effect: "in all probability." It would also be appropriate to say that if a person dies as a infidel, they will be damned. You cannot say Mr. X died as a infidel, because you do not have the ability to read a man's soul.
The condemning is done by St. Francis Xavier, and the Holy Office under Piux X, for both said "person dies as a infidel, they will be damned". Are you criticizing them? What is wrong with you? Have you read my posts. There statements are based on the assumption that a person dies a infidel/heretic. They were not judging a specific person, but making a general statement.
Read what I wrote, it is very precise. One has nothing "to judge", if a person tells you that their relative died as a heretic.How would the person know the state of their relatives soul at death? Are you claiming that they have the gift of reading a persons soul like the Cure d'Ars?
-
[How would the person know the state of their relatives soul at death? Are you claiming that they have the gift of reading a persons soul like the Cure d'Ars?
This cannot be argued with as it is only through divine Revelation that we know who is and who is not in heaven.
I have many relatives that were not visible members of the Church when they died. Nonetheless, I still remember them at Mass and ask God to grant them the graces of final conversion.
Still, we were given signs to know who was most likely to be among the Elect, and these cannot be cast aside because there is a theological possibility of an anct of perfect contrition in the last moment of life.
The Church, while having always taught us that for those who die without these visible signs we should not even entertain a faint hope for their salvation, nevertheless encourages us to pray for their death-bed conversion.
She is a wonderful Mistress and Mother, this Church!
-
[How would the person know the state of their relatives soul at death? Are you claiming that they have the gift of reading a persons soul like the Cure d'Ars?
This cannot be argued with as it is only through divine Revelation that we know who is and who is not in heaven.
If this statement is true, then you must acknowledge BOD. Otherwise, we would know that anyone that has not been baptized with water is in hell.
-
[How would the person know the state of their relatives soul at death? Are you claiming that they have the gift of reading a persons soul like the Cure d'Ars?
This cannot be argued with as it is only through divine Revelation that we know who is and who is not in heaven.
If this statement is true, then you must acknowledge BOD. Otherwise, we would know that anyone that has not been baptized with water is in hell.
I do acknowledge BOD. I just do not give it the latitude that some do. I cannot uphold one teaching while dismissing another teaching.
-
Gunfighter wrote : It would not be judging, if you qualified your statement with something to the effect: "in all probability."
Nadie responds: This is correct. However, saying "in all probability", is weak, it does not teach anything to the non-Catholic hearer. It is not what the Holy Office under Pius X instructed us to say.
Gunfighter wrote :It would also be appropriate to say that if a person dies as a infidel, they will be damned.
Nadie responds: This is what the Holy Office under Pius X instructed/ordered us to do. This teaches the hearer that if they do not convert they will with out a doubt go to Hell, for they would then fall "under the group" of non-Catholics who without a doubt are going to Hell.
Gunfighter wrote :You cannot say Mr. X died as a infidel, because you do not have the ability to read a man's soul.
Why should a Catholic have to even bring up this qualifier? All it does is open the door to speculations, and doubts? The Catholic only needs to say if a person dies as a infidel, they will be damned. If a practicing traditional Catholic, who confessed before died, and received extreme unction, knowingly witheld confessing a mortal sin, he died with ONE mortal sin on his soul, he will go to hell. That's all that should be said. It teaches something. Excuses do not teach anything but doubt, ways out, or time to delay conversion.
Prof. David Allen White, in a radio program (Hugh Hewitt Show) debate with the atheist Christopher Hitchins, the author of the book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" , was asked, if Hitchens dies an athiest will he go to hell? White answered, the Church does not judge such things.
That cowardly copout by Prof. David Allen White, taught everyone that one does not need to be a Catholic. It was a horrible answer that affected millions of listeners forever. The Holy Office under Pius X did not teach that. He should have said: All who die as athiests go to hell. Anyone that answers that question the same cowardly evasive way, like Cupertino wrote below, is not teaching anyone anything but that no one need to be a Catholic to be saved.
Cupertino: The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation
By the way, I'm still awaiting for Cupertino or all the others who say the same thing "The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation", to show me where the Church teaches that from tradition. I posted what the Church teaches us to say, in the answer from the Holy Office under Pius X.
Salvation, even for Catholics is not easy:
"It has been revealed that on the day of the death of St. Bernard there also died 79,997 other people, and of this total of 80,000 who died, only St. Bernard and two other monks were saved". (Anthony Mary Claret )
-
By the way, I'm still awaiting for Cupertino or all the others who say the same thing "The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation", to show me where the Church teaches that from tradition. I posted what the Church teaches us to say, in the answer from the Holy Office under Pius X.
This was way back on page 23:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/docuмents/singulariquadam.html
-
I have made every effort to answer all questions with clear quotes from Church authorities; some dogmatic, some from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, some from the Fathers of the Church, Saints, and Doctors. Below are all my authorites quotes that I posted on this thread in answering questions posed to me. They are posted below in the order that I had posted them as the thread went along.
Now, let me post all the authoritative sources quoted by those who defend BOD, those that do not believe in EENS as it is written, in this discussion:
One quote from Sta. Thomas. That's it! The rest of ALL that was written by my adversaries were their own personal opinions with no sources for their opinions. And this is a LONG thread! ONLY ONE AUTHORATATVE QOUTE!
Despite my continually pleas for people not to give their personal opinions, and my requests that they post authoriative quotes, no sources were ever posted. Why? There amy be many answers:
Because my adversaries do not know how to determine truth, because they do not know the faith, because they are lazy, because they are likely "One eyed men who live in a country of blind men"?
"In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king."
Bottom Line is that they do not determine truth as Catholics (from authoritative sources), but from personal opinions LIKE PROTESTANTS. BY their deeds you shall know them.
-------------------------------------------
Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents 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.” (Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent)
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
When God's mercies have reached their end He punishes, and pardons no more. God is merciful; but, as great as His mercy is, how many people He sends to Hell every day! God is merciful but He is also just; and He is therefore obliged to punish those who offend Him. When sins reach a certain number, God pardons no more. St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and other Fathers teach that, according to the words of Scripture: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight" (Wisdom 11: 2 1), God has fixed for each person the number of sins He will pardon; and when this number is completed, He will pardon no more. God does bear with us, but not forever. When the time comes for vengeance, He punishes. How many God has sent to Hell for the first offense! St. Gregory relates that a child five years old was seized by the devil for having uttered a blasphemy and carried into Hell. Another of eight, after his first sin, died and was lost. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
How many souls have been damned for a single mortal sin! St. Ignatius of Loyola
Faith is a gift from God. And let no one have any doubt whatsoever that, while this gift is given to some, to others it is not given. Why it is not given to everyone ought not disturb the faithful; even if no one were delivered, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God!
St. Augustine
"The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family." ( Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222. )
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to
be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver
of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General
Canon IV. 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.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio,
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope St. Pius V, Bull excommunicating the heretic Queen Elizabeth of England, Feb.25, 1570: “The sovereign jurisdiction of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, has been given by Him [Jesus Christ], unto Whom all power in Heaven and on Earth is given, the King who reigns on high, but to one person on the face of the Earth, to Peter, prince of the Apostles... If any shall contravene this Our decree, we bind them with the same bond of anathema.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 ;
Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
When God's mercies have reached their end He punishes, and pardons no more. God is merciful; but, as great as His mercy is, how many people He sends to Hell every day! God is merciful but He is also just; and He is therefore obliged to punish those who offend Him. When sins reach a certain number, God pardons no more. St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and other Fathers teach that, according to the words of Scripture: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight" (Wisdom 11: 2 1), God has fixed for each person the number of sins He will pardon; and when this number is completed, He will pardon no more. God does bear with us, but not forever. When the time comes for vengeance, He punishes. How many God has sent to Hell for the first offense! St. Gregory relates that a child five years old was seized by the devil for having uttered a blasphemy and carried into Hell. Another of eight, after his first sin, died and was lost. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
How many souls have been damned for a single mortal sin! St. Ignatius of Loyola
Faith is a gift from God. And let no one have any doubt whatsoever that, while this gift is given to some, to others it is not given. Why it is not given to everyone ought not disturb the faithful; even if no one were delivered, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God! (St. Augustine)
----------------------
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification, but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know, do you?
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there ate such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
Bread of Life, (1952) by Fr. Leonard Feeney, pg 137
--------------------
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
-----------------------------------------
THE TEACHINGS OF THE FATHERS, DOCTORS AND SAINTS OF THE CHURCH UPON THE FINAL DESTINY OF MOST PEOPLE.
1) Notwithstanding assurances that God did not create any man for Hell, and that He wishes all men to be saved, it remains equally true that few will be saved; that only few will go to Heaven; and that the greater part of mankind will be lost for ever. (St. John Neuman)
2) It is certain that few are saved. (St. Augustine)
3) The majority of men shall not see God. (St. Julian the Martyr)
4) Those who are saved are in the minority. ( St. Thomas Aquinas)
5) The greater part of men choose to be damned rather than to love almighty God. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
6) So vast a number of miserable souls perish, and so comparatively few are saved. (St. Philip Neri)
7) Among adults there are few saved because of the sins of the flesh....With exception of those who die in childhood, most men will be damned. (St. Remigius of Rheims)
8) Death bed conversions/repentance-there are hardly any: Out of 100,000 sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely ONE will be saved. (St. Jerome)
9) The MAJORITY OF CATHOLICS GO TO HELL:
a) The greater number of Christians today are damned. The destiny of those dying on one day is that very few - not as many as ten - went straight to Heaven; many remained in Purgatory; and THOSE CAST INTO HELL WERE NUMEROUS AS SNOWFLAKES in mid-winter. (Bl. Anna Maria Taigi)
b) There are many who arrive at the faith, but few who are led to the heavenly kingdom. Behold how many are gathered here for today's Feast-Day; we fill the church from wall to wall. Yet who knows how FEW they are who shall be numbered in that chosen company of the elect? (Pope St. Gregory the Great)
c) The Ark, which in the midst of the Flood was the symbol of the Church, was wide below and narrow above, .... It was wide where the animals were, narrow where men lived; for the Holy Church is indeed wide in number of those who are carnal minded, narrow in the number of those who are spiritual.
( Pope St. Gregory the Great)
d) Shall we all be saved? Shall we go to heaven? Alas, my children we do not know at all! But I tremble when I see so many souls lost these days. See, they fall into Hell as leaves fall from the trees at the approach of winter. (St. John Vianney)
10) MOST PRIESTS GO TO HELL:
a) I do not speak rashly, but how I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are more numerous. ( St. John Chrysostom)
b) Most priest are lost and few bishops are saved, not because of what they do, so much as what they fail to do. (St. John Chrysotom)
c) Many religious go to Hell because they do not keep their vows. (St. Vincent Ferrer)
11) CATHOLICS NOT ASPIRING AND NOT LIVING AS SAINTS WILL GO TO HELL:
a) They who are enlightened to walk in the way of perfection, and through lukewarmness wish to tread the ordinary paths, shall be abandoned. (Bl. Angela of Foligno)
b) They who are to be saved as Saints, and wish to be saved as imperfect souls, shall not be saved. (Pope St. Gregory the Great)
c) St. Teresa.... had she not risen from the state of lukewarmness in which she lived, she would in the end have lost the grace of God and been damned. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
12) How many inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to say is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with it's thousands of inhabitants, not 100 people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! ( St. John Chrysostom - the city was Antioch and its inhabitants were known to be in pursuit of comfort and the good things of things life.)
13) A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell. (St. Anthony Mary Claret - It has been revealed that on the day of the death of St. Bernard there also died 79,999 other people, and of this total of 80,000 who died, only St. Bernard and two other monks were saved. So out of 80,000 dead, 79,997 went to Hell! )
14) In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
15) If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it. ( St. John Vianney)
16) He who goes to Hell, goes of his own accord. Everyone who is damned, is damned because he wills his own damnation. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
17) THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT THE FAITH CAN ALSO GO TO HELL:
a) When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without the faith, but not because of their sin of unbelief. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
d) No one is lost without knowing it, and no one is deceived without wanting to be. (St. Teresa of Avila)
18) OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THERE IS NO SALVATION:
a) No matter how praiseworthy his actions might seem, he who is separated from the Catholic Church will never enjoy eternal life (Pope Gregory XVI)
b) O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
---------------
From: The New Catholic Dictionary (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd06856.htm)
Providence
(Latin: providere, to foresee, provide)
Adapting means to an end, God in His Wisdom ordering every event so that the purpose of creation may be realized, and, in particular providing for every human being the means of working out his destiny and of serving and glorifying his Creator, Ruler, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Saint John Damascene calls it: "The will of God by which all things are ruled by right reason." It leaves no room for chance or for fate. It is the personal act of God in regard to man. It is the expression of His relation to us as Father. "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things." (Matthew 6) It is our reason and motive for prayer, as taught by Christ in the "Our Father." It is God's hand leading us on, invisible especially in moments of trial and darkness, but visible, as Cardinal Newman says in Parochial Sermons I, when we can look back and account for the happenings that have influenced our lives and enabled us to go on in God's service. In volume V he says it is nearly the only doctrine held with real assent [approval] by the mass of religious Englishmen, which seems to be true generally of Christians who are not members of the Church Christ founded.
--------------------
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess.14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov.
22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to
the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the
sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of
the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe
through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and
the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the
kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is
real and natural water.”
----------------
St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church taught....[/color][/url]
CHAPTER II.
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
1. With regard to its necessity, it should be known that Baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the sacraments.
Without Baptism no one can enter heaven.
Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. It is also the most necessary, inasmuch as no one is capable of receiving any other sacrament if he has not previously received Baptism. Hence, Baptism is called the gate of all the sacraments.
--------------------
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia-1907)
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
"Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none." (Saint Francis Xavier)
The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. It is not an invisible
extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “ Leo XIII, Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to
state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her
soul.’”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical
body, the Church (corpore mystico)…”Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His mystical Body.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it
follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden
and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly
impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that
man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of
both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate
union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something
dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
Pope Eugene IV, in his Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of the
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ. This destroys the idea that one canbe saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since
the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical
body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were
foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made
up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:
whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no
member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its
head.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and nonexempt,
belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at
all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is
fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same
will…”
Pope Clement XIV, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of
the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
----------------------
-
Nadie, quit your agenda posting. The Church is somewhat devided over the BOD issue. Some Saints believed in it, others didn't. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. And not all of those quotes you posted were directly refering to BOD.
-
By the way, I'm still awaiting for Cupertino or all the others who say the same thing "The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation", to show me where the Church teaches that from tradition. I posted what the Church teaches us to say, in the answer from the Holy Office under Pius X.
This was way back on page 23:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/docuмents/singulariquadam.html
I saw that quote from you before Pax, and I thought that you were posting it to show that BOD and all it's mutants, should not be taught because "it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved", and that "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry".
If you are saying the "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry", means that "The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation", that is a long stretch.
Let me add that that speech by Pius IX did exactly what I warned about before, that cowardly qualifiers like this spread the idea that ANYONE can be saved outside of the Church. It is huge slip of the tongue by Pius IX. However, since Singulari Quadem, is just an allocution (a speech to the cardinals), it is fallible.
It can't change the dogmas that absolutely no one can be saved even if the shed their blood for Christ. The theory of invincible ignorance is from the 1600's, and never got anywhere, and was resuscitated by the liberals in the late 1800's after this quote by Pius IX. It is not part of tradition, and is rejected by the Fathers, St. Thomas, St. Aphonsus Ligouri.
-
I have a family (A wife homeschooler, and 5 children under 9) to take care of, and so, with "that", which is enough material (right?), I close my participation on this thread.
I am no longer sick, therefore, don't expect for me to answer any more questions here, as I will only have time to check in once in a while.
-
This was way back on page 23:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/docuмents/singulariquadam.html
I saw that quote from you before Pax, and I thought that you were posting it to show that BOD and all it's mutants, should not be taught because "it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved", and that "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry".
You need to read the entire quote before you add elipses to it :fryingpan:
-
I have a family (A wife homeschooler, and 5 children under 9) to take care of, and so, with "that", which is enough material (right?), I close my participation on this thread.
I am no longer sick, therefore, don't expect for me to answer any more questions here, as I will only have time to check in once in a while.
Please say it is not true. We need more Dimond Kool Aid drinkers. Plus you have a penchant with font selection.[/size]
-
I have a family (A wife homeschooler, and 5 children under 9) to take care of, and so, with "that", which is enough material (right?), I close my participation on this thread.
I am no longer sick, therefore, don't expect for me to answer any more questions here, as I will only have time to check in once in a while.
Please say it is not true. We need more Dimond Kool Aid drinkers. Plus you have a penchant with font selection.[/size]
Ok, but how do you really feel?
-
Ok, but how do you really feel?
I think we beat this horse to death.
-
Why did Pope Pius XII appoint Archbishop Lefebvre as the Apostolic Delegate to France when the Archbishop believed in implicit faith and invincible ignorance and baptism of desire. There is a well known picture of Pope Pius XII and Abp. Lefebvre. Why didn't the Pontiff scold Lefebvre? Even John Paul II scolded a liberation theologian in South American "Ud. tiene que arreglar sus cosas" etc.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_58r3rUTyZdQ/SW8hC_Lr_uI/AAAAAAAAAeA/-G-VFIUsAp4/s320/el_papa_reprende_a_ernesto_cardenal_en_1983_med.jpg)
-
Nadie, your position is patently absurd. I don't need to write much, nor scream my words, as you do.
Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Quotes have been given for that here.
It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
You are smarter than them all! Your position is absurd.
Below is quoted a previous posting response which sums up my position on baptism of desire of the catechumen, and baptism of blood. My position is clear, it is out in the light for all to see.
Your position on the other hand is hidden, either due to ignorance, or on purpose, I can't judge hearts.
Cupertino said: "Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (EENS). Quotes have been given for that here."
Nadie answers: All the quotes on EENS were posted by me.
Cupertino said: It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie responds: Yes, EENS is dogmatic, and anyone who calls it into doubt has completely lost the faith
Cupertino said Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
Nadie responds: That is a perfect example of Protestant self opinion on your part. Not one authoritative quote from you, just your opinions. Are we supposed to take your word for it?
What previous "solemn teaching", dogmatic teaching, that can't be denied, are you referring too? Not even BOD of the catechumen has been solemnly declared, infallible declared, nor declared by the universal ordinary magisterium! More importantly, you have not clearly limited your "baptism of desire", to the (only real) baptism of desire which finds support from St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and St. Thomas. You are hiding behind baptism of desire of the catechumen, of the Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, when you really believe in all the MUTANT false forms, which are actually opposed by The Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. Read below, and come out into the light and explain yourself.
Question for Nadie:
Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.
Don't mix baptism of blood with baptism of desire of the catechumen, and all the other modern offshoots of it. That is just a tactic to FIND the support of some saints. A few saints don't make doctrine. Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church.
There are maybe like 10 examples of baptism of blood saints in the 2000 year history. Not one can be proved not to have been baptized. Now, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of people who are incomprehensible just hanging on to life for the longest time, then they are baptized and immediately die. Fr. DeSmet details thousands of such infant and elderly baptisms he administered himself in his book written in the 1850's. There are hundreds of examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized.
Why would God not provide any examples of baptism of blood except like 10 back 1800 years ago, and then God provides hundreds of thousands of examples of persons who scarcely held on to life and died by the groves (as described by Fr. Smet), immediately upon being baptized? Why would God provide so many examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized?
That's baptism of blood, and as for baptism of desire of the catechumen (forget all the other offshoots of it, they have no support from the medieval saints )there is not one single example in 2000 years.
Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church. Catholics follow dogma, not a story here and there over 2000 years.
As for calling anyone a heretic, I don't do that, not for BOB or BOD of the catechumen. If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumens who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.
-
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
-
:cool:
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
-
"In our times", says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
http://www.cfnews.org/invig.htm
-
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
That we can have at least good hope for the salvation of those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX)
-
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
That we can have at least good [/size]hope for the salvation of those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX)
This is why I believe that your are either of bad faith or do not have the necessary capacity to determine what is de fide.
The operative word that you totally disregard is GOOD. No one has EVER stated that there is a GOOD chance of salvation. In fact, all of the traditional Catholic proponents of BOD say it is VERY RARE that some saves their soul through BOD. [/size]
-
Nadie, your position is patently absurd. I don't need to write much, nor scream my words, as you do.
Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Quotes have been given for that here.
It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
You are smarter than them all! Your position is absurd.
Below is quoted a previous posting response which sums up my position on baptism of desire of the catechumen, and baptism of blood. My position is clear, it is out in the light for all to see.
Your position on the other hand is hidden, either due to ignorance, or on purpose, I can't judge hearts.
No, it is perfectly open. I believe in the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and I believe that the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus and Pius IX on the matter of baptism of desire are in perfect conformity with that dogma.
Your answer to these sources was that they are "not infallible" because you want to reject them as not being in conformity, otherwise you wouldn't say that. If they are not in conformity, then they call into doubt EENS. If they call EENS into doubt, they have fallen away completely from the divine Faith. Furthermore, nobody in the whole Church noticed for generations! But you do now. Your position is IMPOSSIBLE for Christ's divine Church.
You answered my question with the same answer that prompted my question. You are either ignorant of the subject matter or you are hiding your real beliefs.
Cupertino wrote: "I believe that the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus and Pius IX",
Nadie answers: Catechism of Trent and St. Alphonsus both oppose Pius IX's belief in invincible ignorance (Inv Ign was invented in the 1600's). You are hiding your beilfs or you don't know what you believe
Come out into the light.
-
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
That we can have at least good [/size]hope for the salvation of those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX)
This is why I believe that your are either of bad faith or do not have the necessary capacity to determine what is de fide.
The operative word that you totally disregard is GOOD. No one has EVER stated that there is a GOOD chance of salvation. In fact, all of the traditional Catholic proponents of BOD say it is VERY RARE that some saves their soul through BOD.
I didn't say one thing or another, all I did was post the quote. You are totally out of line, saying I'm of bad faith.
Besides, if the dogmatic decree on EENS "absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ" can be twisted to mean that that pretty much anyone can be saved, then what's the big deal about this word "good"? Get real.
-
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
That we can have at least good [/size]hope for the salvation of those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX)
This is why I believe that your are either of bad faith or do not have the necessary capacity to determine what is de fide.
The operative word that you totally disregard is GOOD. No one has EVER stated that there is a GOOD chance of salvation. In fact, all of the traditional Catholic proponents of BOD say it is VERY RARE that some saves their soul through BOD.
I didn't say one thing or another, all I did was post the quote. You are totally out of line, saying I'm of bad faith.
Besides, if the dogmatic decree on EENS "absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ" can be twisted to mean that that pretty much anyone can be saved, then what's the big deal about this word "good"? Get real.
If you are of bad faith then you lack the ability to analyze doctrine. All of you cites, do not address the question that you answer with them.
No one has said that "pretty much anyone can be saved." We have said it is EXTREMELY RARE. Since you seem to constantly misrepresent the Church's position on the issue, it is logical to assume you are of bad faith.
To address your rhetorical question. If a protestant sheds his blood for Christ, but holds steadfast to his heresy, he is NOT saved.
-
I have a family (A wife homeschooler, and 5 children under 9) to take care of, and so, with "that", which is enough material (right?), I close my participation on this thread.
I am no longer sick, therefore, don't expect for me to answer any more questions here, as I will only have time to check in once in a while.
I am sorry that you had a relapse. I hope you get well soon. :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
To address your rhetorical question. If a protestant sheds his blood for Christ, but holds steadfast to his heresy, he is NOT saved.
IMHO, a Protstant cannot shed his blood for Christ, for he rejects the true Chrust and sets up a cardboard christ in His place.
-
To address your rhetorical question. If a protestant sheds his blood for Christ, but holds steadfast to his heresy, he is NOT saved.
IMHO, a Protstant cannot shed his blood for Christ, for he rejects the true Chrust and sets up a cardboard christ in His place.
Yes, Pax, the official Catholic Church determined that any priest who suspects a Protestant may have been in good faith in his explicit errors, may have a private Mass said for his soul by a Catholic priest. This is official testimony of our divine Church that it is possible for a Protestant to have saved his soul, but not by actual means of his false sect.
To clear up a point: I personally define a Protestant as anyone who holds fast to the errors of Prostentatism. Otherwise, I see no reason to call him a Protestant.
-
What did Pope Pius IX have to say about this matter?
That we can have at least good [/size]hope for the salvation of those who have never been in the true Church of Christ is hereby condemned as error (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX)
This is why I believe that your are either of bad faith or do not have the necessary capacity to determine what is de fide.
The operative word that you totally disregard is GOOD. No one has EVER stated that there is a GOOD chance of salvation. In fact, all of the traditional Catholic proponents of BOD say it is VERY RARE that some saves their soul through BOD.
I didn't say one thing or another, all I did was post the quote. You are totally out of line, saying I'm of bad faith.
Besides, if the dogmatic decree on EENS "absolutely no one can be saved outside of the Church, even if they shed their blood for Christ" can be twisted to mean that that pretty much anyone can be saved, then what's the big deal about this word "good"? Get real.
If you are of bad faith then you lack the ability to analyze doctrine. All of you cites, do not address the question that you answer with them.
No one has said that "pretty much anyone can be saved." We have said it is EXTREMELY RARE. Since you seem to constantly misrepresent the Church's position on the issue, it is logical to assume you are of bad faith.
To address your rhetorical question. If a protestant sheds his blood for Christ, but holds steadfast to his heresy, he is NOT saved.
If you have one instance, no matter how rare, it makes the entire case false ad vitiates the entire Catholic Faith.
Take a course in logic and learn that ignoring the law of contradiction can basically undermine the position you're really trying to defend.
-
If you have one instance, no matter how rare, it makes the entire case false ad vitiates the entire Catholic Faith.
Take a course in logic and learn that ignoring the law of contradiction can basically undermine the position you're really trying to defend.
Hey! that's what I basically just told Nadie! I did give one instance of a contradiction, and he/she ran away from it.
Either there's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church or there isn't. If you're going to contradict a dogma that's been infallibly defined three times with one rare instance, you might as well forget about the whole thing.
Some people don't care about logic, they're Sillonists or some other such group of people who love ecstasy more than truth.
-
Either there's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church or there isn't. If you're going to contradict a dogma that's been infallibly defined three times with one rare instance, you might as well forget about the whole thing.
No one who is saved is outside the Catholic Church. I'm willing to bet there are people who have not received water Baptism who have been saved, and that the saints who believed in the possibility of salvation without water Baptism had a good understanding of elementary logic, and certainly have had the position that their position does not contradict EENS.
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith —Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit." 4
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
-
Here's a question. If Christ made baptism absolutely necessary for salvation, why is it that He never baptized anyone?
-
Here's a question. If Christ made baptism absolutely necessary for salvation, why is it that He never baptized anyone?
Well, there really is no "if" about it, we know Jesus did make it absolutely necessary for salvation..........John 3:5 Jesus answered: 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.
As to why He never baptized anyone is anyone's guess - should they decide to bother guessing.
-
If baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, wouldn't Christ have had a moral obligation to baptize all of His followers?
-
If baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, wouldn't Christ have had a moral obligation to baptize all of His followers?
His command was sufficient, Christ is not obligated, morally or otherwise to any man to do anything. It is we who are obligated to Him. It is we who are bound to His commands, not the other way around.
-
It became an obligation upon the birth of the Catholic Church. That was from Pentecost on, after the Resurrection and Ascension.
Why then did Christ tell Nicodemus Baptism was necessary for salvation long before Pentecost?
-
Cupertino wrote: You care for logic? Then tackle the logic I provided, which Nadie ran away from
There's as many personal opinions as there are people. I don't waste time debating against people's personal opinions. If you want to discuss the Catholic faith, post authorities from tradition.
So far your record is perfect, 100% personal opinons.
-
It became an obligation upon the birth of the Catholic Church. That was from Pentecost on, after the Resurrection and Ascension.
Why then did Christ tell Nicodemus Baptism was necessary for salvation long before Pentecost?
God was talking in regard to setting up his Church in the very near future. The transition period was unique in going from the true religion on earth of the Jews to the true religion of Christ universally for mankind. Just as when Christ told men that they would not have eternal life unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood well before the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
It is curious how He did not use the future tense though. He spoke in present tense. Unless you do x, you cannot be saved. Why do this if He meant for this requirement to take place in the future?
-
Telephorus wrote: No one who is saved is outside the Catholic Church. I'm willing to bet there are people who have not received water Baptism who have been saved,
Willing to bet? That's not very convincing. Just your opinion.
Telephorus: the saints who believed in the possibility of salvation without water Baptism had a good understanding of elementary logic, and certainly have had the position that their position does not contradict EENS.
From SSPX site:
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith —Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."
This information that you posted is all erroneous and outdated. They're painting with a broad brush, and every point has been shown to be wrong.
The Fathers of the Church - all come out clearly against the possibility of salvation of the unbaptized catechumen. Look at the St. Augustine quote that started this thread. I could post St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysiotom, St. Fulgetius, all CLEARLY against the idea. Now that's against the possibility of BOD salvation of the unbaptized catechumen. There is not one Father, or any Saint that ever said that a Protestant, or any heretic or schismatic can be saved, in any way shape or form, unless they explicitly convert and confess to a priest before they die. Not one! Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, quotes about BOD are dubious docuмents thought to be forged. The Council of Trent never said anything about BOD. Pope Pius IX only talkked about invincible ignorance in fallible non-universal, non-binding speeches. Pope St. Pius X never said anything about BOD. (Since your SSPX quote is painting with a broad brush, I answer with quick replies. Bring up some details and I can answer those more specifically.)
That SSPX book is a joke, it's old information that's been dismantled and shown to be empty. It just shows how little proof the BODers have for their theories.
-
Telephorus wrote: No one who is saved is outside the Catholic Church. I'm willing to bet there are people who have not received water Baptism who have been saved,
Willing to bet? That's not very convincing. Just your opinion.
Telephorus: the saints who believed in the possibility of salvation without water Baptism had a good understanding of elementary logic, and certainly have had the position that their position does not contradict EENS.
From SSPX site:
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith —Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."
This information that you posted is all erroneous and outdated. They're painting with a broad brush, and every point has been shown to be wrong.
The Fathers of the Church - all come out clearly against the possibility of salvation of the unbaptized catechumen. Look at the St. Augustine quote that started this thread. I could post St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysiotom, St. Fulgetius, all CLEARLY against the idea. Now that's against the possibility of BOD salvation of the unbaptized catechumen. There is not one Father, or any Saint that ever said that a Protestant, or any heretic or schismatic can be saved, in any way shape or form, unless they explicitly convert and confess to a priest before they die. Not one! Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, quotes about BOD are dubious docuмents thought to be forged. The Council of Trent never said anything about BOD. Pope Pius IX only talkked about invincible ignorance in fallible non-universal, non-binding speeches. Pope St. Pius X never said anything about BOD. (Since your SSPX quote is paint with a broad brush, I answer with quich replies. Bring up some details and I can answer those more specifically.)
That SSPX book is a joke, it's old information that's been dismantled and shown to be empty. It just shows how little proof the BODers have for their theories.
What about a prot who has been validly baptized but converts on their deathbed internally without verbalizing it? In other words, they have been baptized, they are a prot, but they are consciously desiring union in the catholic church but are unable to verbalize this desire since they are breaths away from death?
-
It became an obligation upon the birth of the Catholic Church. That was from Pentecost on, after the Resurrection and Ascension.
Why then did Christ tell Nicodemus Baptism was necessary for salvation long before Pentecost?
God was talking in regard to setting up his Church in the very near future. The transition period was unique in going from the true religion on earth of the Jews to the true religion of Christ universally for mankind. Just as when Christ told men that they would not have eternal life unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood well before the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
It is curious how He did not use the future tense though. He spoke in present tense. Unless you do x, you cannot be saved. Why do this if He meant for this requirement to take place in the future?
Perfect example of two Protestants having a discussion, not one quote from an authority of any kind. This is not Catholic. I don't mean to belittle you two, but your "system" is not the Catholic way to discover truth.
-
What about a prot who has been validly baptized but converts on their deathbed internally without verbalizing it? In other words, they have been baptized, they are a prot, but they are consciously desiring union in the catholic church but are unable to verbalize this desire since they are breaths away from death?
I answered this before. A validly baptized Protestant who converts in his deathbed, is a Catholic. However, Catholics die all the time, and go to hell just for having one unbaptized sin on their soul. Therefore, the converted Protestant has to confess all his other his sins, just like a Catholic. A Catholic can do a perfect act of contrition, but it requires that he want to confess his sins to a priest. If the Catholic is willing to confess all his sins but one that he is too embarased to confess, he is lost. Now, if a converted Protestant is not willing to confess his sins to a priest, then he will not be saved, just like any other Catholic.
In both cases, there was no "perfect act of contrition.
-
What about a prot who has been validly baptized but converts on their deathbed internally without verbalizing it? In other words, they have been baptized, they are a prot, but they are consciously desiring union in the catholic church but are unable to verbalize this desire since they are breaths away from death?
I answered this before. A validly baptized Protestant who converts in his deathbed, is a Catholic. However, Catholics die all the time, and go to hell just for having one unbaptized sin on their soul. Therefore, the converted Protestant has to confess all his other his sins, just like a Catholic. A Catholic can do a perfect act of contrition, but it requires that he want to confess his sins to a priest. If the Catholic is willing to confess all his sins but one that he is too embarased to confess, he is lost. Now, if a converted Protestant is not willing to confess his sins to a priest, then he will not be saved, just like any other Catholic.
In both cases, there was no "perfect act of contrition.
Nadie, let me ask you a few questions that are related to this.
-Are you a sede?
-Where do you assist at?
-How do you explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of traditional priests (both SSPX and sede) believe in BOD/BOB?
-Are they committing an error, a material heresey, or outright heresey?
-If they are involved in heresey (whether materially or formally) how do you feel about receiving sacraments from them?
-
-Are you a sede?
No
-Where do you assist at?
SSPX
-How do you explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of traditional priests (both SSPX and sede) believe in BOD/BOB?
That's only in the USA. My family elders (Spain taught) never heard of BOD. I'm 57. The USA is a good place to loose the faith.
USA trads represent like what? 1/10 of 1% of the world's Catholics? Sedes like 1/10 of that? Does that prove them wrong about their ideas?
-Are they committing an error, a material heresey, or outright heresey?
It's spelled heresy. AND That's your problem, I don't concern myself with such accusations, I only seek truth. You won't find me anywhere calling anyone a heretic or schismatic unless they're real heretics/schismatics like the Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants.
-
-Are you a sede?
No
-Where do you assist at?
SSPX
-How do you explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of traditional priests (both SSPX and sede) believe in BOD/BOB?
That's only in the USA. My family elders (Spain taught) never heard of BOD. I'm 57. The USA is a good place to loose the faith.
USA trads represent like what? 1/10 of 1% of the world's Catholics? Sedes like 1/10 of that? Does that prove them wrong about their ideas?
-Are they committing an error, a material heresey, or outright heresey?
It's spelled heresy. AND That's your problem, I don't concern myself with such accusations, I only seek truth. You won't find me anywhere calling anyone a heretic or schismatic unless they're real heretics/schismatics like the Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants.
Actually deciding whether believing in BOD is either an error or a heresy is important considering you have some sede clergy like Fr. Cekada who openly impose their error/hersey/whatever you want to call it on their faithful by refusing communion to those who reject BOD.
And the USA does not represent 1/10 of 1% of the world's catholics, and americans make up more than 10% of the world's sedes. Quit exaggerating.
-
Actually deciding whether believing in BOD is either an error or a heresy is important considering you have some sede clergy like Fr. Cekada who openly impose their error/hersey/whatever you want to call it on their faithful by refusing communion to those who reject BOD.
Deciding is not important, and neither is Cekada important. His personal decisions only affect himself and those few people that go to his chapel. He's plain wrong in what he is doing, and he'll have to answer to God for that one.
I have to answer to God too. I'm not going to call anyone a heretic today, unless they are Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants.
-
Cupertino: You consider that an "authoritative source", the fact your own relatives didn't hear of something? It is not even valid reasoning.
I posted enough authoritative sources for 10 threads. You are not going to drag me into your personal opinions mud wrestling ring. Don't waste my time.
Now let me give you an authoritative source to prove that reasoning is an authority.
"Liberalism is a Sin" which was sent to Rome to be scrutinized, and the Holy Office glowingly praised it in 1887. Nadie, so much of what you have said here recently against reasoning is proven wrong by this authoritative source:
Liberalism is a Sin (1887) said:
Wow, you actually posted a source! Good for you. Nevertheless, your "reason" is still just your personal opinions. You still have to post your sources for whatever personal "reasoning" you come up with. There's 2000 years of church writings to pick from.
Your posting of that quote as a "source" for what you are trying to prove (I don't have a clue where you are going with this) reminds me of the story of the cat:
"There was once a cat who dreamed that he was a man, dreaming that he was a cat. When he woke up, he did not know whether he was a man or a cat."
-
You have a huge problem, Nadie, if you reject deductive reasoning, and try to making reason something subjective. It is a disastrous path.
1) EENS was solemnly defined.
2) Anyone calling into doubt defined dogma loses the Faith.
3) the Church cannot fail to let 100 years go by without condemning a heresy publicly circulating among Catholics.
Nadie, let me know if you personally accept all of these or not.
Your #3 is not so. Not sure where the time limit of 100 years comes from but it doesn't work that way.
Many centuries can pass before the Church infallibly condemns as heresy or defines a dogma.
The Church allows debates to go on and on - till the learned have exhausted every and all arguments for and against whatever article of faith is in question.
Then perhaps a month, year or a few more centuries can pass while all the arguments are carefully tallied, weighed and measured before the Pope actually defines anything. This is not all that uncommon. This may well be what is going on with BOD.
-
The number of years was merely a sizable chunk.
Can a #2 that calls into doubt an a already solemnly defined #1 be permitted to be taught to all the faithful in officially approved books for learning for over 100 years, and the Catholic Church, with her popes, Saints and body of clergy and faithful not notice it at all?
Absolutely. BOD is proof of it.
The necessity of the Sacrament was defined at Trent. People see one mis-translated word mentioned twice ("desire") then use that to support their theory of BOD and start spreading it.
Anyone who reads what Trent declared, i.e. read what is written not what they want it to say, will absolutely have a dilemma on their hands if they believe in BOD.
The fact that BOD contradicts infallible declarations notwithstanding.
-
You have a huge problem, Nadie, if you reject deductive reasoning, and try to making reason something subjective. It is a disastrous path.
1) EENS was solemnly defined.
2) Anyone calling into doubt defined dogma loses the Faith.
3) the Church cannot fail to let 100 years go by without condemning a heresy publicly circulating among Catholics.
Nadie, let me know if you personally accept all of these or not.
You just made up points 2 & 3. And your "deductive reasoning" is just your own "reasoning" based on false premises.
You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe.
You have not posted any sources for anything that you write. All you do is write.
-
Nadie, your position is patently absurd. I don't need to write much, nor scream my words, as you do.
Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Quotes have been given for that here.
It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
You are smarter than them all! Your position is absurd.
Below is quoted a previous posting response which sums up my position on baptism of desire of the catechumen, and baptism of blood. My position is clear, it is out in the light for all to see.
Your position on the other hand is hidden, either due to ignorance, or on purpose, I can't judge hearts.
Cupertino said: "Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (EENS). Quotes have been given for that here."
Nadie answers: All the quotes on EENS were posted by me.
Cupertino said: It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.
Nadie responds: Yes, EENS is dogmatic, and anyone who calls it into doubt has completely lost the faith
Cupertino said Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!
Nadie responds: That is a perfect example of Protestant self opinion on your part. Not one authoritative quote from you, just your opinions. Are we supposed to take your word for it?
What previous "solemn teaching", dogmatic teaching, that can't be denied, are you referring too? Not even BOD of the catechumen has been solemnly declared, infallible declared, nor declared by the universal ordinary magisterium! More importantly, you have not clearly limited your "baptism of desire", to the (only real) baptism of desire which finds support from St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and St. Thomas. You are hiding behind baptism of desire of the catechumen, of the Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, when you really believe in all the MUTANT false forms, which are actually opposed by The Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. Read below, and come out into the light and explain yourself.
Question for Nadie:
Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.
Don't mix baptism of blood with baptism of desire of the catechumen, and all the other modern offshoots of it. That is just a tactic to FIND the support of some saints. A few saints don't make doctrine. Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church.
There are maybe like 10 examples of baptism of blood saints in the 2000 year history. Not one can be proved not to have been baptized. Now, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of people who are incomprehensible just hanging on to life for the longest time, then they are baptized and immediately die. Fr. DeSmet details thousands of such infant and elderly baptisms he administered himself in his book written in the 1850's. There are hundreds of examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized.
Why would God not provide any examples of baptism of blood except like 10 back 1800 years ago, and then God provides hundreds of thousands of examples of persons who scarcely held on to life and died by the groves (as described by Fr. Smet), immediately upon being baptized? Why would God provide so many examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized?
That's baptism of blood, and as for baptism of desire of the catechumen (forget all the other offshoots of it, they have no support from the medieval saints )there is not one single example in 2000 years.
Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church. Catholics follow dogma, not a story here and there over 2000 years.
As for calling anyone a heretic, I don't do that, not for BOB or BOD of the catechumen. If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumens who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.
:applause: :applause:
-
Nadie, let me know.
Nadie wrote: You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe.
Cupertino, let me know.
-
You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe. Until you post in detail what variety of BOD that you believe, this thread is finished.
-
You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe. Until you post in detail what variety of BOD that you believe, this thread is finished.
I believe I did.
How about if you list the "brands", and I will choose one.
No you didn't.
-
You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe. Until you post in detail what variety of BOD that you believe, this thread is finished.
I believe I did.
How about if you list the "brands", and I will choose one.
No you didn't.
Here is what I wrote, and it seemed to satisfy at the time:
I believe in the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and I believe that the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus and Pius IX on the matter of baptism of desire are in perfect conformity with that dogma.
Now for the list of "brands"?
Why don't you explain what YOU think they mean?
-
You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe. Until you post in detail what variety of BOD that you believe, this thread is finished.
I believe I did.
How about if you list the "brands", and I will choose one.
No you didn't.
Here is what I wrote, and it seemed to satisfy at the time:
I believe in the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and I believe that the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus and Pius IX on the matter of baptism of desire are in perfect conformity with that dogma.
Now for the list of "brands"?
Why don't you explain what YOU think they mean?
Thanks, but I don't want to play games. Let me see this list of "brands" and I will choose one. I never heard of "brands of BOD" before.
I know what he means. The most irritating brand being the Invincible Ignorance Brand. They are the ones who proclaim possessing invincible ignorance as a get-out-of-hell-free card. All those currently persevering in invincible ignorance -- yes, it is seen by some as a virtue -- automatically receive BOD and have the road to heaven opened up for them. One almost gets the feeling that revealing the Faith to them would be doing them a disservice.
-
You have yet to post a definition of what your brand of BOD is. We don't know what you believe. Until you post in detail what variety of BOD that you believe, this thread is finished.
I believe I did.
How about if you list the "brands", and I will choose one.
No you didn't.
Here is what I wrote, and it seemed to satisfy at the time:
I believe in the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and I believe that the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus and Pius IX on the matter of baptism of desire are in perfect conformity with that dogma.
Now for the list of "brands"?
Why don't you explain what YOU think they mean?
Thanks, but I don't want to play games. Let me see this list of "brands" and I will choose one. I never heard of "brands of BOD" before.
I'm not playing games either.
Pius IX said a lot of things about BoD and there are different people who've made different readings of what he's said on the matter.
If you choose not to explain exactly what it is about what he said or you allege he says, there's not much point in continuing and it's pretty dishonest of you to put the blame on me when you're the one who's made the assertion in the first place.
-
Why do hardcore Feeneyites such as the Dimonds consider Catholics today as heretics, yet they do not call Pius IX, Cardinals Ottaviani and Marchetti-Selvaggiani, et al heretics damned to Hell?
Considering the situation of the Church since 1958/63/65, with confusion and the possible lack of a Supreme Pontiff which should lessen the culpability of the faithful, to me, at least, the Dimonds seem to make it easier to be culpable.
The pope, whether it is the current one and the SSPX "convert" thesis is correct, or the Cassiciacuм Thesis is correct, or the sedevacantist thesis is correct, God willing, once this crisis is over, a Pope must effectively end the debate.
As I previously mentioned, I only wish to hold the Catholic Faith. As such, if anyone charges me of heresy, I appeal to eternal Rome, I appeal to the Most Holy Office of the Inquisition, I appeal to my Archdiocese, which may be vacant, to decide if I am simply mistaken, or if I am pertinacious. I can say right now that I do not pertinaciously hold to heresy with full consent of the will, due to the situation the Church is in. Also, the Dimonds have no authority or jurisdiction to try and/or condemn me or anyone else who believes that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Church, in the words of St. Alphonsus, "de Fide."
-
Why do hardcore Feeneyites such as the Dimonds consider Catholics today as heretics, yet they do not call Pius IX, Cardinals Ottaviani and Marchetti-Selvaggiani, et al heretics damned to Hell?
Considering the situation of the Church since 1958/63/65, with confusion and the possible lack of a Supreme Pontiff which should lessen the culpability of the faithful, to me, at least, the Dimonds seem to make it easier to be culpable.
The pope, whether it is the current one and the SSPX "convert" thesis is correct, or the Cassiciacuм Thesis is correct, or the sedevacantist thesis is correct, God willing, once this crisis is over, a Pope must effectively end the debate.
As I previously mentioned, I only wish to hold the Catholic Faith. As such, if anyone charges me of heresy, I appeal to eternal Rome, I appeal to the Most Holy Office of the Inquisition, I appeal to my Archdiocese, which may be vacant, to decide if I am simply mistaken, or if I am pertinacious. I can say right now that I do not pertinaciously hold to heresy with full consent of the will, due to the situation the Church is in. Also, the Dimonds have no authority or jurisdiction to try and/or condemn me or anyone else who believes that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Church, in the words of St. Alphonsus, "de Fide."
By calling people who believe in EENS as it is written, "Feeneyites", you make yourself sound no different than the Dimonds. You need to venture out from your knowledge base ghetto, if you truly think the Dimonds (or Fr. Feeney) are the only believers in EENS as it is written. Not one believer in EENS as it is written, has called any BODer a heretic here on this long thread. AND yet, the BODers here have called me a heretic at least four times. You don't see me calling them "hardcore "ites" do you? Get over your obsession with the Dimonds.
-
What you wrote does not explain what you believe. The Fathers of the Church never wrote anything about baptism of desire of anyone but a catechumen. All of the other theories that followed are not properly BOD. It is not the "Feeneyites" who say this. Read the SSPX Fr. Rulleau's Baptism of Desire, A Patristic Commentary Page 43:
"The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith. Historically, the Fathers of the Church only the case of a catechumen who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament. Following the same reasoning, however, should we not include in this category of saved by baptism of desire converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism? If so, what kind of desire is necessary? Would a simple attraction towards the Catholic religion suffice? Again, following the same reasoning, should we not include someone who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known? It becomes clear that by following this line of reasoning you would end by extending baptism of desire to every decent man seeking God. Consistent with the same reasoning, should we not go so far as to call "anonymous Christians" everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"? When the Church was only confronted by a waning paganism, these questions did not come up. Since the beginning of the Modern Age, however, as the Church has found herself confronted by entire nations which do not know Christ, and, in the former Christendom, by Christians benighted by ignorance and unbelief, these questions have become unavoidable" END
----------------------------
Do you believe in BOD of "the catechumen,who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament"?
Do you believe in the salvation of "converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism, if so, what kind of desire is necessary"?
Do you believe in the salvation of "those who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known"?
Do you believe in the salvation of a "decent man seeking God".
Do you believe in (Implicit Faith) that "everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"?
-
Dear Cupertino,
Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?
So much for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr (baptism of blood), anyone can be saved in your belief system!
Your Belief system is Schizophrenic
The Fathers were unanimously against BOD of the catechumen. The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific, and against implicit faith. They were also opposed to any implicit desire that did not explicitly include a desire to be a Catholic. Therefore, your belief system pits your very own sources of evidence one against the other, your beliefs are schizophrenic. You only quote St. Thomas when he suits you, and ignore him when he opposes your beliefs.
-
:popcorn:
-
:popcorn:
And please... Yes or No, or I'll choke on my popcorn.
-
Cupertino, more significantly, can A and B both be true when they contradict each other?
Do you reject the New Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church?
-
nadieimportante said:
The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific --
That's true, because it isn't. Someone would be saved despite invincible ignorance, not because of it --
-- and against implicit faith.
That is blatantly untrue, even Richard Ibranyi quotes St. Alphonsus saying that the opinion that someone needs only implicit faith in certain mysteries is PROBABLE. That was at the time when this was still being discussed and there were opinions on both sides; Pius IX ended the discussion, and clearly taught implicit faith.
-
Cupertino said:
2) Other brand? Probably most Feeneyites insist on physical water even to say an Angel will do it covertly at least a moment before death even if other humans can't witness it.
And if that doesn't show people their literal-mindedness and scruples, I don't know what does.
-
Cupertino, more significantly, can A and B both be true when they contradict each other?
Do you reject the New Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Read the title of this thread and realize that most significantly, you should answer the question I just asked.
Trent explicitly states that "if anyone saith that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema".
It seems that you want to make an exception to the rules for reasons all your own, whatever they may be.
-
nadieimportante said:
The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific --
That's true, because it isn't. Someone would be saved despite invincible ignorance, not because of it --
-- and against implicit faith.
That is blatantly untrue, even Richard Ibranyi quotes St. Alphonsus saying that the opinion that someone needs only implicit faith in certain mysteries is PROBABLE. That was at the time when this was still being discussed and there were opinions on both sides; Pius IX ended the discussion, and clearly taught implicit faith.
Bl Pius IX states that no one is saved by invincible ignorance.
-
Raul wrote: That is blatantly untrue, even Richard Ibranyi quotes St. Alphonsus saying that the opinion that someone needs only implicit faith in certain mysteries is PROBABLE.
If you would quote the source itself that you mention, rather than writing your own interpretation, you would catch your own errors. Confusing as you do, implicit desire with implicit faith, is like confusing lightning bug and lightning.
I have not seen you once post the quotes of which you only mention the authors. This is not about you, there's other people reading these threads, and your not posting the actual quote is not teaching anyone anything. Are people supposed to take your word for it?
-
Cupertino said:
2) Other brand? Probably most Feeneyites insist on physical water even to say an Angel will do it covertly at least a moment before death even if other humans can't witness it.
And if that doesn't show people their literal-mindedness and scruples, I don't know what does.
I can understand how you feel, since you don't know the difference between, baptism of desire of the catechumen, implicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance. To you it's just "literal mindedness".
Again the diffrence between all those DIFFERENT derivatives of BOD, is like the difference between lightning and lightning bug. One is harmless and the other will kill you.
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to thread".