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.

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Telesphorus

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

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.

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.

Quote from: nadieimportante

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.

Quote

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.

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.

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.