-
To be clear, I *don't* want to get into pagans at all on this particular thread. We've had other threads to talk about that. I know some people are gonna instantly refuse to participate on this thread for that reason, OK whatever. But this question is specifically about Christians who have been baptized by water (ie. this isn't a BOD thread, at least not directly.)
So here's my question. And I wanna understand if I'm missing something.
From what I understand, baptism, ex opere operato, removes all original sin and all past mortal sins. From what I understand this works automatically when administered. Is this correct or not and if not why not?
Given that that's the case, it seems like a baptized Christian, would either have to be culpable for his heresy, or else be culpable for some *other* mortal sin to be damned, is this correct? if not why not?
Particularly, I have in mind Ladislaus' idea (and to be clear the idea is what's important here, its just him that I've heard articulate it) that the only material heretics are those who have the correct formal rule of faith.
But this raises a question. Let's say for the sake of argument, and maybe this is ridiculous but its intended to illustrate a principle. Say you have a Baptist church in the middle of some wilderness community somewhere, everyone in the town goes to this church, reads the Bible, Pastor Jim Bob always teaches people to follow their own interpretation of the Bible and not to follow him. Billy John gets baptized at age 18. Lives his whole life in that community. Marries. has kids. Teaches them his religion. Never commits any mortal sins. Never encounters anyone who isn't baptist, ever.
He's baptized, so his mortal sins have definitely been wiped away. he didn't commit any new ones. Is he somehow culpable for his heresy? ANd if not, what's the basis for his not being saved? Or is this scenario just not possible for some reason?
-
If (1) he was validly baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity (2) is excused by reason of invincible ignorance from the mortal sin of heresy; (3) believes explicitly in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, and (4) loves God or Our Lord Jesus Christ perfectly, with contrition; such a person can belong to the soul of the Church, and we say of him that he is a Christian united to the Church in desire. Those who deny this possibility are mistaken. Even Fr. Feeney, and St. Benedict's Centre, for e.g. do not.
-
I don't think this scenario is realistically possible. However if it were possible and he was validly baptized and never committed any mortal sin, he would be saved as a Catholic because he was baptized into the Church. But unless he was mentally retarded, if he was instilled with the Holy Ghost, I believe God would enlighten him and he would notice the errors in the Baptist Church teaching and question it and look for the truth.
-
I don't think this scenario is realistically possible. However if it were possible and he was validly baptized and never committed any mortal sin, he would be saved as a Catholic because he was baptized into the Church. But unless he was mentally retarded, if he was instilled with the Holy Ghost, I believe God would enlighten him and he would notice the errors in the Baptist Church teaching and question it and look for the truth.
The scenario is indeed unrealistic. If the person was baptized it was only by God's grace, if the person never committed a mortal sin it is a miracle, again by God's grace. If he died while still a Protestant his life was taken by God. So the OP takes God out of the picture when it comes to completing the conversion which God 100% brought into being and then the OP kills the person before he asks to be a Catholic, then asks if the person is saved? Totally unrealistic.
-
St. Peter Julian Eymard – Bad Catholic vs Good Protestant
People often say, “It is better to be a good Protestant than a bad Catholic.” That is not true! That would mean that one could be saved without the true faith. No. A bad Catholic remains a child of the family, although a prodigal; and however great a sinner he may be, he still has a right to mercy. Through his faith, a bad Catholic is nearer to God than a Protestant, for he is a member of the household, whereas the heretic is not. And how hard it is to make him become one!
St. Peter Julian Eymard
-
Catechism of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286)
"17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire. [The Sacraments; Nature of the Sacraments; Baptism]
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]
Catechism of the Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm)
CCC 846 "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336"
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
-
Union of Christendom, 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is by far the largest, the most widespread, and the most ancient of Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) communions in the world, and is moreover the mighty trunk from which the other communions claiming to be Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) have broken off at one time or another. If, then, we limit the application of the term Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm) to this, its most authentic expression, the unity of Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm) is not a lost ideal to be recovered, but a stupendous reality which has always been in stable possession. For not only has this Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) ever taught that unity is an essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) note of the true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) Church of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), but throughout her long history she has been, to the amazement of the world, distinguished by the most conspicuous unity of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) and government, and this notwithstanding that she has at all times embraced within her fold nationalities of the most different temperaments, and has had to contend with incessant oscillations of mental (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) speculation and political power. Still, in another and broader sense of the term, which is also the more usual and is followed in the present article, Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm) includes not merely the Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), but, together with it, the many other religious communions which have either directly or indirectly, separated from it, and yet, although in conflict both with it and among themselves as to various points of doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) and practice agree with it in this: that they look up to our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) as the Founder of their Faith, and claim to make His teaching the rule of their lives. As these separated communities when massed together, indeed in some cases even of themselves, count a vast number of souls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm), among whom many are conspicuous for their religious earnestness, this extension of the term Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm) to include them all has its solid justification. On the other hand, if it is accepted, it becomes no longer possible to speak of the unity of Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm) but rather of a Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm) torn by divisions and offering the saddest spectacle to the eyes. And then the question arises: Is this scandal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm) always to continue? The Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) has never tired of appealing in season and out of season for its removal but without meeting with much response from a world which had learnt to live contentedly within its sectarian enclosures. Happily a new spirit has lately come over these dissentient Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), numbers of whom are becoming keenly sensitive to the paralyzing effects of division and an active reunion movement has arisen which, If far from being as widespread and solid as one could wish, is at least cherished on all sides by devout minds (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) ... We may safely leave to the Providence of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm) to determine what course the present reunion movement shall ultimately take, and meanwhile we may emphasize the substantial point that Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) and other reunionists have in common: their mutual desire to see the barriers that separate them removed. They can co-operate, too, in working for the good cause in useful ways without any surrender of their own principles. For they can cultivate friendly personal relations, to the formation of which it will greatly contribute if they can work together for objects, social or otherwise, as to the value of which they are agreed. There is a special value in the personal friendships thus formed, for they tend to dissolve the obstacles which come from sheer misunderstandings and the animosities that these engender. And they can further co-operate for the removal of these same obstacles by positive efforts to understand one another correctly, particularly by the others seeking and the Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm), if they are competent, showing a readiness to give simple explanations of the true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) character of their beliefs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) and practices." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm)
Holy Office Decree on the Ecuмenical Movement: "Now in many parts of the world, as a result of various external events and changes of views on the part of people, but especially in consequence of the common prayers of-the faithful through the grace of the Holy Spirit, there has grown constantly in the minds of many persons separated from the Catholic Church the desire for a return to unity on the part of all who believe in the Lord Christ. To the children of the Church this is surely a cause of true and holy joy in the Lord, and at the same time an invitation to help all those who sincerely seek the truth, by earnest prayer to God imploring for them the grace of light and strength.
However, some of the initiatives that have hitherto been taken by various individuals or groups, with the aim of reconciling dissident Christians to the Catholic Church, although inspired by the best of intentions, are not always based on right principles, or if they are, yet they are not free from special dangers, as experience too has already shown. Hence this Supreme Sacred Congregation, which has the responsibility of conserving in its entirety and protecting the deposit of the faith, has seen fit to recall to mind and to prescribe the following ... It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return."
On Dec. 20th 1949. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-ecuмenical-movement-2070 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-ecuмenical-movement-2070)
-
Outside the Church there is no salvation. Words have meaning (At least the Feeneyites are honest and simple, even if you believe they are wrong.) So to get around these simple words they try to, with weasel words, argue that those who if asked would refuse that they were members of the Catholic Church, are somehow inside of it. In their eagerness to have those saved who are outside of the Ark, most Catholics have hurled themselves outside of the ark in the forty days of rain, and they end up in hell with the rest of them. Not saying you, Xav are among them. Just most people who argue against EENS. Recently people somewhere else were arguing that the majority of people were saved, even though the vast majority of people were never even baptized, and I could not help but thinking that none of these people have the faith. BOD is one thing, but to argue that many more people were saved by BOD than by the real deal seems taking it leagues too far.
When the Church declared that even those who shed their blood for Christ would go to hell if they were outside of the Church, why did not she then mention those of good will being saved? And why on earth would you quote the CCC on this forum, a Vatican II Catechism that almost none of us accept?
-
Matto, St. Benedict's Centre doesn't deny that separated Christians can be in material heresy for a while. I agree with SBC on this.
St. Augustine said this: "But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm)." From: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm)
And St. Thomas Aquinas: "Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01755d.htm) [Holy Trinity and Incarnation; see the earlier articles], man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) is bound to believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) them, just as he is bound to have faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); but as to other points of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) is not bound to believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) them, in so far as he is prepared to believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html). Then alone is he bound to believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)." From: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article5 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article5)
The Council of Florence, Matto, treated most Eastern Christians, including Eastern Bishops who came to that Council, as Christians erring in good faith; up until the point when, after refusing many admonitions from the Council Fathers some of them (like Mark of Ephesus) became obstinate, while others (like Abp. Bessarion, later a Cardinal) became Eastern Catholic. After having waited patiently for nearly 400 years to uproot the horrible Greek Orthodox schism of Photius and Caerularius, then, and only then, in that decree you are mentioning, the Catholic Church said, formal heretics, who do not persevere in the Unity of the Catholic Church - having these people in mind, people like Mark of Ephesus who were formal schismatics - cannot be saved, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ, or give everything they have as alms. Why? The mortal sin of heresy.
Here, Matto, is an example of a great Catholic Evangelist who evangelized tens of thousands of Protestants and secured their return to the Church. "A transient visitor at Chicago in 1875 remarked that "a letter which arrived while I was there, announced to Father Rector the happy conclusion of a mission at Scranton, with 12,000 Communions, 19 converts, 200 adult First Communions, etc., but I found it was scarcely minded, such items being commonplace there. In 1879, after twenty-two years of excursions from Chicago, it was reckoned that Father Damen had conducted in person 208 missions, averaging two weeks time for each; he had travelled on an average of 6,000 miles each year; he and his different bands of companions together had given 2,800,000 Holy Communions and had made 12,000 conversions to the Faith. At one church in New York a party of his missionaries in the course of four weeks distributed no less than 42,000 Holy Communions." https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml (https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml)
Fr. Arnold Damen knew well that some separated Christians were erring in good faith; and he also knew well how to reconcile them. What Catholic Christendom so urgently needs is 1000s of good Priests like him, who do not fall into a false rigorism, but can correctly and prudently judge the state of relative good faith or lack thereof in separated Christians, and use that judgment to bring them back.
In brief, there is a great difference between (1) Formal Heretics or Formal Schismatics who initiated Heretical or Schismatic sects (2) Separated Christians born, through no fault of their own, in a separated Christian community or separated Eastern Church (3) While even the latter must be evangelized, of course, to the Catholic Faith; those who always treat them as formal heretics will hardly secure their return. Many Good Priests, who know well the Catholic Faith, and are fully faithful to the Church, have not treated them so; but have, by the Grace of God, secured their return. Whom will God approve? The important thing is to Evangelize Evangelicals, as Fr. D did.
-
I agree there are some who are Baptized by protestants or Orthodox who are still in the Church and can be saved because they are not truly heretics. I just think they are few and so few that it is not worth mentioning them. And most people other than Feeneyites exaggerate their number out of human respect, and many of them go so far as to lose the faith themselves and also their souls. You were just arguing that saying the F-word was a mortal sin and if a Catholic says it he will go to hell, yet at the same time a man can live and breathe and believe and preach heresy and schism for years and years and still not fall into mortal sin and be saved? (And not just one man but many of them). The way most people set it up, it is better and easier to get to heaven if one is ignorant than if one actually has the faith, so evangelization is actually a dis-service (if this schizophrenic false religion were actually true). The cliche as Charles Coulombe related it and has been related by many others, the conversation between the Catholic student and the liberal teaching brother: "Well if we are Catholic and we have to follow all these rules to get to heaven, but the ignorant protestant does not have to follow any of the rules yet he still gets to go to heaven, what is the point of being a Catholic if all it does is make it harder to get to heaven?"
-
You were just arguing that saying ... was a mortal sin
It is. St. Alphonsus said so in several paragraphs, as mentioned there; but I did not judge anyone's subjective culpability, and only gave a friendly warning, to help people avoid it in future. Objectively, it is mortal. But subjectively, it may, for e.g. be venial, because of lack of full culpability. That's only for a Confessor to judge, in the tribunal of penance. It must be confessed to him, and the Priest will judge.
The same is true of heresy and schism. Heresy is a mortal sin and someone spreading heresy must be warned of the heresy and told so. He must be told he must enter the Church and confess the sin. And that's what the Church does, but She knows some err in good faith.
In good faith, a separated Christian can belong to the soul of the Church. He can be saved, yet not exactly as he is; but, in the hour of death, in a way known to God, he will have to become Catholic. Before going to Heaven, or Purgatory, he will have to confess the Truth of the Catholic Faith - but this will not be known to us, unless God makes it known to His Saints, or others; as He sometimes has done.
From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm#P1Lxii (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm#P1Lxii) 19th Century Catechism of Christian Doctrine:
"Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved."
Let me ask you two specific questions: (1) I wrote an article for Orthodox Christians showing the Dogma of the Filioque from Scripture and Tradition, and urging them to believe in the Dogma. Yet, I also addressed them as Christians and separated brethren near the end. Please read it and tell me what you think: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ (https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/) At least two Orthodox Christians after reading it have told me they returned to the Catholic Church. Do you believe I was wrong, in that article, to call them as Christians?
(2) Consider two Priests, let's say, Father A and Father D: Father A believes all Protestants and Orthodox are formal heretics or formal schismatics, but makes no effort at all to evangelize them. Father D believes some Orthodox or Evangelicals may be Christians erring in good faith, makes very tiresome efforts to evangelize them, and by the Grace of God, reconciles 1000s of them to the Church; whom will God approve, in your opinion, Matto, Father A or Father D?
God Bless.
-
Heresy is a mortal sin and someone spreading heresy must be warned of the heresy and told so. He must be told he must enter the Church and confess the sin. And that's what the Church does, but She knows some err in good faith. (no one errs in "good faith", no one converts because they recognize the truth by hearing someone tell them. If that were so, every non-Catholic around me would convert instantly upon my teaching them. Conversion is not man's doing, it is totally of God. The non-Catholic only err for two reasons 1) because God has not chosen to reveal it to them interiorly, give them the grace, at that time, because he knows they will reject it. 2) God has given them the grace to understand, but they reject it. Remember that God can turn stones into sons of Abraham. )
In good faith, a separated Christian can belong to the soul of the Church (there is no such thing as the soul of the church, the Vatican II "subsists church", there is only the Catholic Church composed of the baptized members who profess the Catholic Faith. See Below) .
God Bless.
See my responses in red above.
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, of immortal memory in the 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 Ghost 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.
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 and Human 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 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 heresy that the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI and Pius XII.
Third, the clearest proof against the “Soul of the Church” errpr 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 famous 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.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
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.”
-
So here's my question. And I wanna understand if I'm missing something.
From what I understand, baptism, ex opere operato, removes all original sin and all past mortal sins. From what I understand this works automatically when administered. Is this correct or not and if not why not?
To be clear, we are talking about the baptism of adults, not infants or children baptized before they reach the age of reason.
As such, you are correct, baptism washes away all sin, but only if they are baptized in the Catholic Church, if they are baptized into a prot church, their original sin is certainly removed, but at the same time they commit a mortal sin of sacrilege by receiving the sacrament outside of the Church, they profane a holy thing. If that person were to die on his way home, he would face God with that mortal sin on his soul.
If this does not seem right to you, consider that it is as much a sacrilege as if a priest were to apostatize, become a Baptist preacher and give out valid hosts and wine every Sunday to his congregation of prots. They are profaning a holy thing, which is a sacrilege committed by both the priest, and all of those receiving the sacred body and blood unworthily.
The Church even forbids baptizing the invincibly ignorant (insane, retarded, or some brain injury that prevent them from thinking) even in danger of death unless before becoming insane they have shown a desire for Baptism.
Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are actual prot baptisms, valid and sacrilegious.
-
Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M14fSoqpOss) are actual prot baptisms, valid and sacrilegious.
Sorry, entirely wrong example....the above is an example of a BOD.
-
no one errs in "good faith"
Code of Canon Law, 1917: "Heretics and schismatics, who err in good faith ..." (Canon 731) St. Augustine's teaching above: "such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you". St. Augustine judged that the person he was speaking to was only in material heresy; i.e. a Christian erring in good faith.
If that were so, every non-Catholic around me would convert instantly upon my teaching them
That would depend on whether you taught them correctly. As I was saying, if you just assume all are formal heretics, and you are incorrect, you may very well place an impediment in what God wants to do through you. St. Optatus, who reconciled many Donatists to the Church, also made allowance for their good faith; he taught them clearly that schism was a grave sin, but culpability is another thing.
Conversion is not man's doing, it is totally of God.
In some cases, yes, like in St. Paul's conversion; in all cases, God is the First Cause of man's conversion. But the Holy Ghost very often chooses to use instruments in accomplishing this His Purpose. The very Great Commission of Christ our Lord (Mat 28:18-20) teaches us this plainly, as does the Church's unanimous missionary understanding of it.
Remember that God can turn stones into sons of Abraham.
No doubt; but God also expects us to do what we can, to help those around be saved, if they are non-Catholics, and sanctified if they are already Catholics; at least beginning by constant prayer and sacrifice for them first, to lead them back to the Church. So, applied to Protestants, if a person is a serious Protestant, and believes in the Divinity of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture; he should be taught, e.g. about the Real Presence, from John 6, 1 Cor 11 etc. It is presumptuous to expect God to send Angels to teach this. He can do that also, but we are bound to what we can for the salvation of our non-Catholic friends.
there is no such thing as the soul of the church ... The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost
You just contradicted yourself. If there is no such thing as the soul of the Church, and the soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost, you are saying, there is no such thing as the Holy Ghost. You may not have intended to, but that's what you said; second, as explained in the Catechisms cited, here is Pope St. Pius X: "A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints." Theologians speak of uncreated and created soul of the Church. The uncreated Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost Himself. The created soul of the Church are His gifts of grace; separated Christians can share in these gifts.
one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body.
This is a classic non sequitur. It does not follow: it's on par with saying. Man is a soul. A soul is not a body. Therefore, Man is not a Body. It is an absurdity; Man is a composite of both soul and body. In the same way, the Church is composed of both body and soul.
even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ
Yes, if he is a formal heretic, or a formal schismatic; since formal heresy and formal schism are mortal sins no one should commit. That does not address Christians who err in good faith. The Church has even traditionally treated these two cases as completely different.
See in that Holy Office decree, the separated are often referred to as Christians. Formal heretics are not called Christians. Only those in material heresy are called such: "However, some of the initiatives that have hitherto been taken by various individuals or groups, with the aim of reconciling dissident Christians to the Catholic Church, although inspired by the best of intentions, are not always based on right principles, or if they are, yet they are not free from special dangers, as experience too has already shown ... In order that so noble a work as the "union" of all Christians in one true faith and Church may daily grow into a more conspicuous part of the entire care of souls, and that the whole Catholic people may more earnestly implore this "union" from Almighty God, it will certainly be of assistance that in some appropriate way, for example through Pastoral Letters, the faithful be instructed regarding these questions and projects, the prescriptions of the Church in the matter, and the reasons on which they are based. All, especially priests and religious, should be exhorted and warmly encouraged to be zealous by their prayers and sacrifices to ripen and promote this work, and all should be reminded that nothing more effectively paves the way for the erring to find the truth and to embrace the Church than the faith of Catholics, when it is confirmed by the example of upright living." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-ecuмenical-movement-2070 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-ecuмenical-movement-2070) The Church used expressions like "dissident Christians" instead of "all heretics and schismatics" because She knows this.
-
My question to stubborn is doesn’t receiving the sacrament in a Protestant church have to be known in some way in order to be mortal? Can you ignorantly commit a mortal sin?
As far as Mattos comment, I’m not sure what’s “too few to be worth mentioning” and I’m not super concerned about that question. You could think there are none, but still think it’s theoretically possible, and your position wouldn’t differ at any essential principle from mine. I’m trying to understand the underlying theological principles of those who say it’s impossible, how that reconciles with ex opere operato sacraments. Stubborn seems to think you can commit a mortal sin by pure accident, I don’t think that’s right. Last Tradhican seems to think God would providentially prevent any situation where someone who isn’t in mortal sin doesn’t enter visible communion. Maybe
-
As such, you are correct, baptism washes away all sin, but only if they are baptized in the Catholic Church, if they are baptized into a prot church, their original sin is certainly removed, but at the same time they commit a mortal sin of sacrilege by receiving the sacrament outside of the Church, they profane a holy thing. If that person were to die on his way home, he would face God with that mortal sin on his soul.
I don't think this is totally right. It's not a sin to receive baptism in a protestant church anymore than it's a sin to be baptized in a hospital bed or as one is lying, bleeding in a dirty street after a fatal car crash. Baptism is a unique sacrament that can be received almost anywhere, and administered by almost anyone (even an atheist), as long as the proper form is used and the person receiving it has the proper intentions.
.
I don't believe that an adult protestant who receives baptism immediately commits a mortal sin of sacrilege in any way. They also don't apostatize immediately either (normally). It would depend on the person and their knowledge. Some protestant "churches" don't even think baptism is necessary, but only optional and a unique ceremony. Other "churches" think it's absolutely necessary, so those adults that get baptized are usually those who grow up with very little religious training and so baptism is really their first steps toward God. For these people, they just learned about the Bible/Christ; they wouldn't know enough about Catholicism to reject it. As they progress in learning the protestant bible, and as they learn to hate Catholicism, THEN they would be guilty of apostasy, but that can be a gradual process and it also depends on the graces that God gives them, which He surely gives to all baptized persons to lead them to the truth.
.
I just heard a story about an 20s-something Episcopalian girl who started showing up at a Trad chapel. She's a history student who found out about Traditionalism when she heard about Fatima and used the internet to find out what the story was all about. She told a friend that after seeing a latin mass, she felt this was the one, true religion. ...Can we say that she apostatized long ago, when she never knew the Truth? I don't think so. It's very hard to judge these types of situations. Many times these people are material heretics but not formal because "they don't know what they don't know."
-
My question to stubborn is doesn’t receiving the sacrament in a Protestant church have to be known in some way in order to be mortal? Can you ignorantly commit a mortal sin?
That a sin has been committed is certain, so yes, certainly you can commit a mortal sin in ignorance. Indeed, the oldest of all Novenas, "The Novena to the Holy Ghost", says that "Sin is the result of ignorance, weakness and indifference".
What is uncertain to us, is the degree of culpability. For our part, we are supposed to know whether "X" is a sin or not before we commit the act, that is why God gave us brains, otherwise, the best course of action is to be as ignorant as possible so as not to bare any responsibility whatsoever before God for our actions.
-
See my responses in red above.
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, of immortal memory in the 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 Ghost 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.
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 and Human 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 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 heresy that the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI and Pius XII.
Third, the clearest proof against the “Soul of the Church” errpr 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 famous 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.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
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.”
XavierSem rejects the clear infallible dogmas above with his opinions and a quote from a fallible catechism in Italian which is falsely translated into English.
-
I don't think this is totally right. It's not a sin to receive baptism in a protestant church anymore than it's a sin to be baptized in a hospital bed or as one is lying, bleeding in a dirty street after a fatal car crash. Baptism is a unique sacrament that can be received almost anywhere, and administered by almost anyone (even an atheist), as long as the proper form is used and the person receiving it has the proper intentions.
No Pax, what you are talking about applies to infants, but according to canon law, even in danger of death an adult may not be baptized without having first expressed the desire to be baptized a Catholic.
The sacraments belong to Holy Mother the Church. They are strictly her property and as such, she dictates the laws concerning them. She basically says: "You want to be baptized? - wonderful, then you have to be baptized a Catholic because we have not preserved the integrity of this sacrament for 2000 years so that a prot can use my sacrament in order to baptize you into their church".
I could be wrong but I think the only sacrament the Church will allow for outside of the Church is Matrimony - someone can check that.
If I get to it, I will look for the reference to this, and that a sacrilege results in being baptized outside of the Church.
In the mean time, I came across this the other day, whether or not this is valid doesn't matter imo, this is a video of a sacrilege (https://fox61.com/2019/12/22/man-dying-of-cancer-asks-to-be-baptized-as-final-wish-while-in-hospice-care-tmw/).
-
Last Tradhican seems to think God would providentially prevent any situation where someone who isn’t in mortal sin doesn’t enter visible communion. Maybe
St. Augustine on the Errors of Pelagius said:
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. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
-
The short version for people like XavierSem who totally reject clear doctrines to seek teachers according to their own desires:
The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost. It is not an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized 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. These two dogmas are clear on this, I really do not need to say anything more:
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 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 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.”
-
The scenario is indeed unrealistic. If the person was baptized it was only by God's grace, if the person never committed a mortal sin it is a miracle, again by God's grace. If he died while still a Protestant his life was taken by God. So the OP takes God out of the picture when it comes to completing the conversion which God 100% brought into being and then the OP kills the person before he asks to be a Catholic, then asks if the person is saved? Totally unrealistic.
I don't think it's unrealistic at all. There are people in isolated areas --- think deepest Appalachia --- who never interact in any meaningful way with anyone who is "different" from them, might only have been to the nearest reasonably good-sized city a few times in their lives (for medical care, possibly a school field trip, etc.), and whose life revolves around whatever little town, county, or school district they happen to live in. Their only knowledge of Catholicism comes from distorted snippets on TV, and random concepts of Catholics being people who drink too much (these people approach alcohol the way faithful Catholics approach sɛҳuąƖ sin), sodomite priests who abuse children, and superstitious immigrants and their descendants who fall down and worship statues of Mary as though she is a goddess. It is possible that they've stumbled upon a Jack Chick comic book here and there. Their little church, their little town, and their family and friends are all they know. A tiny minority of them even handle poisonous snakes. (I don't care what anyone says, a person who takes a venomous snake in their hands and drinks strychnine is nothing if not sincere. They're not doing it for show.)
-
I could be wrong but I think the only sacrament the Church will allow for outside of the Church is Matrimony - someone can check that.
If I get to it, I will look for the reference to this, and that a sacrilege results in being baptized outside of the Church.
I see what you're saying but there's also the facts of how the Church treats those who were baptized in protestant churches - namely, 1) such baptisms are treated as valid, and 2) the Church does not "conditionally" re-baptize these people. Why? Because 99% of the time, they hold the requisite tenets of the Faith necessary for baptism - belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. So, in a sense, when such people are baptized, they are in the state of grace and (I don't think) they (always) would commit a sacrilege or a sin of apostasy (immediately). But, does the Church treat them as if they were heretics/apostates, if they want to become Catholics? Yes.
.
I'm not disagreeing with you in theory; I only disagree with the explanation that IMMEDIATELY after receiving baptism, a protestant is in sin. This doesn't make sense to me. The sin of apostasy or heresy involves the will to accept error, and it's not like the protestants get baptized and then turn, and immediately spit on a picture of Our Lady to finish the ceremony. There's a wide variety of protestant belief out there, and while protestant ideals ALWAYS lead to error, I don't think that individuals in such "churches" are anti-Catholic right out of the gate, the split second after they get baptized.
-
I see what you're saying but there's also the facts of how the Church treats those who were baptized in protestant churches - namely, 1) such baptisms are treated as valid, and 2) the Church does not "conditionally" re-baptize these people. Why? Because 99% of the time, they hold the requisite tenets of the Faith necessary for baptism - belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. So, in a sense, when such people are baptized, they are in the state of grace and (I don't think) they (always) would commit a sacrilege or a sin of apostasy (immediately). But, does the Church treat them as if they were heretics/apostates, if they want to become Catholics? Yes.
It is the Church who makes it a sacrilege to be baptized outside of the Church re: the video I posted as an example.
Regardless of whatever false religion it happens, all baptisms done properly are valid, but adults who receive it outside of the Church as if it is nothing more than a type of initiation, commit a sacrilege and are in sin immediately after they are baptized - because not only did they receive the sacrament with an improper disposition, they received it for the wrong reason altogether.
If they had known the Church's actual requirements for the reception of the sacrament, and it is likely they did know at least something about the requirements, but regardless - the truth is that they would have never desired or wanted to be baptized a Catholic at all - which is the reason they were baptized outside of the Church.
So while they (may or) may not have outright publicly rejected any doctrines of the Church, they sin by embracing wrong ideas and wrong beliefs, which beliefs are inherently anti-Catholic whether they acknowledge them as such or not. This means that they are living in sin before, during and after baptism - with the added sin of sacrilege for being baptized outside of the Church.
-
I don't think it's unrealistic at all. There are people in isolated areas --- think deepest Appalachia --- who never interact in any meaningful way with anyone who is "different" from them, might only have been to the nearest reasonably good-sized city a few times in their lives (for medical care, possibly a school field trip, etc.), and whose life revolves around whatever little town, county, or school district they happen to live in. …..)
They are living in "in isolated areas --- think deepest Appalachia" because God made them born there and live there for some reason. If before they die they never convert, it is only because they rejected God's grace. Nothing, not time (the times they were born and died), not place, not circuмstances, NOTHING is not foreseen by God and directed by God.
Till people really understand and imbibe what St. Augustine teaches below, they will forever be in the vortex of confusion, and like children, will forever be asking "what about if?" :
St. Augustine on the Errors of Pelagius said:
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. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
-
I don't think it's unrealistic at all. There are people in isolated areas --- think deepest Appalachia --- who never interact in any meaningful way with anyone who is "different" from them, might only have been to the nearest reasonably good-sized city a few times in their lives (for medical care, possibly a school field trip, etc.), and whose life revolves around whatever little town, county, or school district they happen to live in. Their only knowledge of Catholicism comes from distorted snippets on TV, and random concepts of Catholics being people who drink too much (these people approach alcohol the way faithful Catholics approach sɛҳuąƖ sin), sodomite priests who abuse children, and superstitious immigrants and their descendants who fall down and worship statues of Mary as though she is a goddess. It is possible that they've stumbled upon a Jack Chick comic book here and there. Their little church, their little town, and their family and friends are all they know. A tiny minority of them even handle poisonous snakes. (I don't care what anyone says, a person who takes a venomous snake in their hands and drinks strychnine is nothing if not sincere. They're not doing it for show.)
LT is right, it is totally and completely unrealistic, I will go so far as to say it's impossible, or all but impossible. Original sin is washed away, but our inclination to sin, our tendency to do evil remains with us our whole life.
What you are suggesting is rooted in Liberalism, more specifically, Naturalism.
As explained in this snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen:
"They [the bishops] are going to have to recognize that liberalism is intrinsically false and will not work, because beneath liberalism, the philosophical basis of liberalism, is what we call Naturalism. Naturalism proclaims, among other heresies, that there is no such thing as original sin, that man is basically good, that he means well and if you let him grow up, he’ll grow up good, he’ll grow up moral, he’ll grow up to be a good fellow.
But Catholic doctrine says that man is not basically good, that he comes into the world bent on evil and if you leave him to himself, he’ll become a savage, he’ll become amoral. He’ll not only do most wicked things but he will try to justify them.
We have to recognize that this is the error of liberalism, that it wants to treat all men as if they really are not bad and that the only reason they are bad is that they are misguided, that they’re victims of circuмstances and of their environment. That they are bad because their mother, or their father, or their parents mistreated them, or because they were deprived of something, or because they didn’t get a chance to go to school with white folk, and all that kind of thing. And we say that no, a man is bad because of original sin and he doesn’t mind being bad, he chooses to be bad. In other words, he cannot blame his wickedness on Adam only, because with every day that passes, he confirms the evil within himself.
At the second Vatican council they tried to say that; "men are bad, that men are anti-Catholic, because the Church has not treated men correctly, and if the Church approached them kindly, and with understanding and you might say with intelligence, modern public relations - they would have come into the Church instead of opposing it and being against us in every way and distrusting it and even engaging in efforts to destroy it".
And the bishops are going to have to recognize that original sin is operative in every soul and it always will be, and that all men have to be disciplined, they have to acknowledge that by themselves they will do wicked things. And Almighty God in the Church established an authority over them, and they may not like to be told what to do, but they must be told what to do, and they must be warned of the consequences of not doing it, and the consequences ultimately are hell fire..."
-
If (1) he was validly baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity (2) is excused by reason of invincible ignorance from the mortal sin of heresy; (3) believes explicitly in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, and (4) loves God or Our Lord Jesus Christ perfectly, with contrition; such a person can belong to the soul of the Church, and we say of him that he is a Christian united to the Church in desire. Those who deny this possibility are mistaken. Even Fr. Feeney, and St. Benedict's Centre, for e.g. do not.
You're missing a key ingredient. It is not enough for someone to believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but they must believe it with the correct formal motive of faith.
Also, you're wrong that such a person (if you add the ingredient of the correct formal motive) belongs to the "soul of the Church." Such a one, by virtue of Baptism, belongs to the Church soul and body ... and is in fact a Catholic.
-
Catechism of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286)
"17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
Wrong thread. This discussion is about someone already baptized.
-
This might sound strange, but just looking at this situation from another perspective. I would agree with the third comment, i.e. it would be impossible for a Protestant to be in such a case unless he was mentally handicapped. We also should consider that the Protestant religion is totally repugnant to the natural law. Only a person of bad will would believe that he could commit such and such a sin without any sort of punishment. Humans intuitively know that God rewards good and punishes evil.
-
This might sound strange, but just looking at this situation from another perspective. I would agree with the third comment, i.e. it would be impossible for a Protestant to be in such a case unless he was mentally handicapped. We also should consider that the Protestant religion is totally repugnant to the natural law. Only a person of bad will would believe that he could commit such and such a sin without any sort of punishment. Humans intuitively know that God rewards good and punishes evil.
To be clear, I'm not DEFENDING Protestantism, but having been in it before my conversion...
1: Protestants usually believe Jesus paid the penalty outright for them, not that there isn't any punishment. Mind, that's still a misunderstanding, they (to greater or lesser degrees) espouse monergism instead of synergism, and there are serious biblical problems with this, but they usually aren't saying the sins aren't punished at all.
2: Protestants USUALLY will say that if someone flagrantly sins without remorse or abandon they aren't *really* covered by Christ's blood. I mean yeah, there's a major no true scotsman here. And yeah, its a lot less precise than the Catholic system. But MANY protestants would deny "Yeah I just can sin all I want, I'll be fine."
-
No Pax, what you are talking about applies to infants, but according to canon law, even in danger of death an adult may not be baptized without having first expressed the desire to be baptized a Catholic.
Merry Sunday to you Stubborn, could you, kindly, reference the canon that you cite?
-
Adults (i.e. those at the age of reason) do not receive sanctifying grace without a cooperation of the will and proper disposition of the intellect. Infants receive these as infused virtues without said cooperation, but adults cannot. This is taught clearly by the Council of Trent. So, for instance, if I were walking down the street, grabbed a random adult Hindu, and baptized him, would he be put into a state of grace? No, of course not. This is true whether or not he commits a mortal sin afterwards or not. He's simply lacking the proper disposition to be baptized. Similarly with a Protestant. If he doesn't have the proper dispositions to faith and charity present, Baptism would not auto-magically put him into a state of grace.
Let's say I find an infant in the jungle and baptize him. He's put into a state of grace. But he goes on to be raised by his pagan parents. Once he reaches the age of reason, the cooperation and affirmation of faith is required in order to sustain supernatural faith. With this lacking, the infused virtue of faith is lot at the age of reason. Similarly with a baptized infant Protestant.
Supernatural faith can be missing by simple absence. Without supernatural faith, there can be no supernatural charity. So an actual mortal sin is not required for sanctifying grace to be lost.
-
So, what's MORE at issue is whether a Protestant is capable of having supernatural faith. That is the real question. Baptism by itself does not put him into a state of grace that remains until mortal sin ... if he is not capable of having supernatural faith. So I think that this is the wrong question. We need to discuss whether or not it is possible for a Protestant to have supernatural faith.
I hold that it is not possible for a Protestant to have supernatural faith. Now, is it possible that there's some person so befuddled and so ignorant that he does have the core basics of the faith in such away that it's not uprooted? I cannot necessarily rule that out. But in that case, he would in fact be a Catholic and not a Protestant. But I would consider this ... if it's possible at all ... to be incredibly rare, and I hold that God WOULD in fact lead such a one into the Church if he were properly disposed in this way.
So, for instance, let's say some Prot minister goes to the jungle, teaches a person about the basics, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, and then proceeds to baptize him after he comes to believe him. This person has no clue about there being Catholicism or Protestantism or any other such details. At that point, the baptized man is a Catholic. But as soon as he begins to learn about the various Prot heresies that uproot faith, then he would lose the faith. Is there some Prot who's so ignorant and befuddled that he's in a similar state as this savage in my example, who just knows the basics and hasn't had his faith polluted and uprooted by heresy? In other words, can there be such a thing as a Prot who's a purely-material heretic? As I said, I can't rule it out, but believe that God leads all of His elect into the visible Church. But those Protestants who believe in faith alone and Sola Scriptura are formal heretics because they have their belief system founded on a false rule of faith that ultimately reduces to their own private judgment. Formal heresy deals with the WHY of belief, while material heresy deals with the WHAT of belief. If you had a Protestant who just so happened to believe every single Catholic doctrine because he deduced them from the Bible, he would still be a formal heretic, since the REASON he believes them does not suffice as the formal motive of supernatural faith. He would merely have a correct natural faith, but not a supernatural faith.
-
Can anyone post what the FFSPX position on the OP is?
-------------------------
OT1: My FFSPX priest recognizes that ANYONE can validly baptize ANYONE. Whether it is the correct thing to do, and sinful or not, is another matter.
Adults (i.e. those at the age of reason) do not receive sanctifying grace without a cooperation of the will and proper disposition of the intellect. Infants receive these as infused virtues without said cooperation, but adults cannot.
In reference to this, above, I mention this incident with the FSSPX priest and others. We were all having lunch and a lady told us a story of when she delivered in hospital: she had just delivered her own baby and was in a twin bedroom, in hospital, next to a Jehovah's witness mother, with her Jehovah's witness newly born baby. When the Jehovah's witness mother went to the bathroom, the lady who was with us, got up and went over to the other baby's crib and baptized the Jehovah's witness baby by saying the correct words, using water and correct gestures. The baptism was valid. But the lady who administered the baptism (unknown to the other mother and unrequested by the baby or its mother) committed sin. The Jehovah's witness baby would grow up to become an apostate and, as such, he/she would die outside the Church and in greater sin than if he/she had never been baptized.
This is taught clearly by the Council of Trent.
Kindly, could you reference this? Also, was that council infallible (dogmatic)?
OT2: My FSSPX priest affirms that BoD is possible in principle but extremely unlikely in practice.
-
Can anyone post what the FFSPX position on the OP is?
-------------------------
OT1: My FFSPX priest recognizes that ANYONE can validly baptize ANYONE.
Correct. If I baptized the random Hindu in my example, he would in fact be VALIDLY baptized. He would receive the character of Baptism. But he would not receive the sanctifying grace that normally accompanies the Sacrament. So, in other words, if some day he converted to the faith, he would not need to be baptized again. But of course I would commit the grave sin of sacrilege by baptizing this Hindu and conferring the Sacramental character on an infidel. As for your example about an infant, now the infant WOULD be put into a state of grace.
-
So, what's MORE at issue is whether a Protestant is capable of having supernatural faith. That is the real question. Baptism by itself does not put him into a state of grace that remains until mortal sin ... if he is not capable of having supernatural faith. So I think that this is the wrong question. We need to discuss whether or not it is possible for a Protestant to have supernatural faith.
I hold that it is not possible for a Protestant to have supernatural faith. Now, is it possible that there's some person so befuddled and so ignorant that he does have the core basics of the faith in such away that it's not uprooted? I cannot necessarily rule that out. But in that case, he would in fact be a Catholic and not a Protestant. But I would consider this ... if it's possible at all ... to be incredibly rare, and I hold that God WOULD in fact lead such a one into the Church if he were properly disposed in this way.
So, for instance, let's say some Prot minister goes to the jungle, teaches a person about the basics, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, and then proceeds to baptize him after he comes to believe him. This person has no clue about there being Catholicism or Protestantism or any other such details. At that point, the baptized man is a Catholic. But as soon as he begins to learn about the various Prot heresies that uproot faith, then he would lose the faith. Is there some Prot who's so ignorant and befuddled that he's in a similar state as this savage in my example, who just knows the basics and hasn't had his faith polluted and uprooted by heresy? In other words, can there be such a thing as a Prot who's a purely-material heretic? As I said, I can't rule it out, but believe that God leads all of His elect into the visible Church. But those Protestants who believe in faith alone and Sola Scriptura are formal heretics because they have their belief system founded on a false rule of faith that ultimately reduces to their own private judgment. Formal heresy deals with the WHY of belief, while material heresy deals with the WHAT of belief. If you had a Protestant who just so happened to believe every single Catholic doctrine because he deduced them from the Bible, he would still be a formal heretic, since the REASON he believes them does not suffice as the formal motive of supernatural faith. He would merely have a correct natural faith, but not a supernatural faith.
@ Ladislaus, would this analogy also hold for an Orthodox Chrsitan? I would guess yes. So, to save an Orthodox, the Orthodox would have to convert.
A question arises. Would a baptized Orthodox or protestant go directly to hell or purgatory to espiate (I am not sure what the English word for it is. Maybe atone)?
This is taught clearly by the Council of Trent.
Could you kindly cite the passage?
-
@ Ladislaus, would this analogy also hold for an Orthodox Chrsitan? I would guess yes. So, to save an Orthodox, the Orthodox would have to convert.
A question arises. Would a baptized Orthodox or protestant go directly to hell or purgatory to espiate (I am not sure what the English word for it is. Maybe atone)?
Same would apply of the Orthodox. Is it possible that there's some Orthodox out there who's so confused and befuddled that his schism and heresy are purely material? Perhaps. But I should think it incredibly rare. But then he would in fact be a Catholic and not Orthodox. If, however, he's not Catholic, then he would go to hell. But if he is Catholic, then whether he went to Purgatory would depend on his degree of culpability with regard to his material errors (and of course his other sins).
-
Same would apply of the Orthodox. Is it possible that there's some Orthodox out there who's so confused and befuddled that his schism and heresy are purely material? Perhaps. But I should think it incredibly rare. But then he would in fact be a Catholic and not Orthodox. If, however, he's not Catholic, then he would go to hell. But if he is Catholic, then whether he went to Purgatory would depend on his degree of culpability with regard to his material errors (and of course his other sins).
Some yes, are confused or ignorant. For example, my wife, did not fully understand the Filioque difference. When I explained it, she concluded that if Jesus is God, then God cannot receive anything from anyone, nothing can proceede from anyone else before it reaches God and also Jesus cannot be created by the Father as Jesus/God too must be of the same substance of the Father.
-
No Pax, what you are talking about applies to infants, but according to canon law, even in danger of death an adult may not be baptized without having first expressed the desire to be baptized a Catholic.
Merry Sunday to you Stubborn, could you, kindly, reference the canon that you cite?
And also to you.
From Commentary on Canon Law 1917: (https://ia800900.us.archive.org/12/items/newcanonlaw00woywuoft/newcanonlaw00woywuoft.pdf)
595. An adult should not be baptized except with his own knowledge and will, and after due instruction. He is, moreover, to be admonished to repent of his sins. In danger of death, if he cannot be thoroughly instructed in the principal mysteries of faith, it is sufficient for the conferring of Baptism that he show in some way his assent to these points of faith, and earnestly promises that he will keep the Commandments of the Christian religion.
If he cannot even ask for Baptism, but has either before, or in his present condition manifested in some probable manner an intention of receiving Baptism, he may be baptized conditionally. If afterwards he gets well, and there remains doubt as to the validity of the Baptism, he may be baptized again conditionally. (Canon 752.)
Also, there's this from Trom Trent's Catechism:
Dispositions for Baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
-
Wrong thread. This discussion is about someone already baptized.
Read what I quoted again more carefully. It includes those already baptized. You are rejecting the teaching of the Pope and the Church.
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]
Last Tradhican is a blasphemer who believes there is no such thing as the Holy Ghost. For he says, absurdly and foolishly, "there is no such thing as the soul of the Church" and "the soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost". What stupidity on his part. Temerarious blasphemer. This is what happens when you deny doctrine out of hatred for souls, and sinful desire for them to be lost.
Real Theologians explain the Uncreated Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost Himself. The Created Soul of the Church is either the persons (like separated Christians in good faith, who are said to belong, to the soul of the Church) themselves, or, sometimes, the created gifts of sanctifying grace, are called the created soul of the Church. It is plainly taught above that the persons can be united to the Soul of the Church. Anyone who condemns this is suspect of heresy as he temerariously and blasphemously condemns Pope St. Pius X. According to Dimondite stupidity, he should become an Ibranyist heretic, and depose His Holiness Pope St. Pius X for his "heresy".
Such a one, by virtue of Baptism, belongs to the Church soul and body ... and is in fact a Catholic.
Did you read that in a Catechism or a Manual, or is it your home-baked theology? The 1917 code plainly says that such persons who are in good faith are still yet not given the Sacraments - which shows they do not belong to the Body of the Church; for if they did, then they could not be denied the Sacraments. The Body of the Church is visible. The Soul of the Church is invisible. Catechumens, unjust excommunicantes, separated Christians in good faith etc all belong to the Church indeed, but not to Her Body; they are united to Her soul.
-
Read what I quoted again more carefully. It includes those already baptized. You are rejecting the teaching of the Pope and the Church.
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, ...
Are you really this daft, man? How can Baptism be supplied for someone who's already baptized? BoD simply does not apply to those who are already baptized. What's under discussion for them is whether or not they are capable of being only materially heretical or schismatic.
-
Did you read that in a Catechism or a Manual, or is it your home-baked theology? The 1917 code plainly says that such persons who are in good faith are still yet not given the Sacraments - which shows they do not belong to the Body of the Church; for if they did, then they could not be denied the Sacraments.
You have a fault notion regarding the "Body of the Church" ... as most EENS-deniers like yourself do. Such as these do in fact formally belong to the Body of Church. All the baptized have the Sacramental character which incorporates them into the Church. So they cannot merely belong to the "Soul" of the Church ... which is a concept, by the way, clearly condemned by Pius XII. All that's going on here is the refusal of the Sacraments is the presumption by the Church based on the external forum that they are outside the Church. You can only go by what you see in the external forum. There's no way for the Church to judge, based on the internal forum, that they DO belong to the Church so as to give them the Sacraments. You extrapolate from this mere inability of the Church to judge the internal forum into a false soul-body ecclesiological dichotomy.
-
Last Tradhican is a blasphemer who believes there is no such thing as the Holy Ghost. For he says, absurdly and foolishly, "there is no such thing as the soul of the Church" and "the soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost". What stupidity on his part. Temerarious blasphemer.
No, you're just an idiot. What he's saying is that there's no such thing as a SEPARATE STANDALONE INDEPENDENT "soul of the Church" that is not united to the Body. This is clearly taught by Pope Pius XII and thoroughly explained by Msgr. Fenton. Would you like me to paste in the multiple paragraphs that Msgr. Fenton wrote debunking the soul-body bifurcation of the Church?
-
So, what's MORE at issue is whether a Protestant is capable of having supernatural faith. That is the real question. Baptism by itself does not put him into a state of grace that remains until mortal sin ... if he is not capable of having supernatural faith. So I think that this is the wrong question. We need to discuss whether or not it is possible for a Protestant to have supernatural faith.
I hold that it is not possible for a Protestant to have supernatural faith. Now, is it possible that there's some person so befuddled and so ignorant that he does have the core basics of the faith in such away that it's not uprooted? I cannot necessarily rule that out. But in that case, he would in fact be a Catholic and not a Protestant. But I would consider this ... if it's possible at all ... to be incredibly rare, and I hold that God WOULD in fact lead such a one into the Church if he were properly disposed in this way.
So, for instance, let's say some Prot minister goes to the jungle, teaches a person about the basics, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, and then proceeds to baptize him after he comes to believe him. This person has no clue about there being Catholicism or Protestantism or any other such details. At that point, the baptized man is a Catholic. But as soon as he begins to learn about the various Prot heresies that uproot faith, then he would lose the faith. Is there some Prot who's so ignorant and befuddled that he's in a similar state as this savage in my example, who just knows the basics and hasn't had his faith polluted and uprooted by heresy? In other words, can there be such a thing as a Prot who's a purely-material heretic? As I said, I can't rule it out, but believe that God leads all of His elect into the visible Church. But those Protestants who believe in faith alone and Sola Scriptura are formal heretics because they have their belief system founded on a false rule of faith that ultimately reduces to their own private judgment. Formal heresy deals with the WHY of belief, while material heresy deals with the WHAT of belief. If you had a Protestant who just so happened to believe every single Catholic doctrine because he deduced them from the Bible, he would still be a formal heretic, since the REASON he believes them does not suffice as the formal motive of supernatural faith. He would merely have a correct natural faith, but not a supernatural faith.
What if the Protestant was just 8, technically above the age of reason, baptized, but still doesn't really know what things like "faith alone" means, and visibly attends a Presbyterian Church?
-
No Pax, what you are talking about applies to infants, but according to canon law, even in danger of death an adult may not be baptized without having first expressed the desire to be baptized a Catholic
Stubborn, I thought you were saying that it was a sacrilege to be baptized in the protestant church. Like PHYSICALLY INSIDE a protestant building. That's why I argued that one can be baptized in a hospital bed, etc, with no sin. ?? Misunderstanding there.
.
So you're saying that it's a sacrilege if a pagan wants to be baptized into the Lutheran faith? Ok, I can see that argument. But I would also argue that this person wouldn't be culpable for such a sin, as they are moving in the right direction; they are moving from paganism towards God, who will surely be pleased that they are accepting actual graces. It wouldn't be correct to say that this pagan is WORSE, spiritually speaking (because of the sacrilege), as a Lutheran than as a pagan. That makes no sense. Even the protestants worship God, in a natural way, while pagans don't in any way. At the time that they are baptized, they would be a material heretic, but since they "don't know what they don't know" their culpability is low, at that point. My opinion is that this former pagan, being newly baptized, would be in the state of grace, since they have "accepted Christ into their life". Only when they learn of the Catholic Faith, only when they learn of the differences (and limitations) of the Lutheran religion, and only after they reject the Catholic Truth, would they be guilty of a sacrilege of formal heresy.
-
What if the Protestant was just 8, technically above the age of reason, baptized, but still doesn't really know what things like "faith alone" means, and visibly attends a Presbyterian Church?
I could see such a one being in the same state as a recently-catechized native, for instance, and so still capable of having supernatural faith. God only knows, perhaps, at the end of the day.
-
LOL. Ladislaus can't even bring himself to quote the whole of what the Pope said! Notice that the Pope includes Baptized Christians as well.
The First Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]
Syllogism I from this teaching of Pope St. Pius X:
Major: A Baptized Person can belong to the Soul of the Church, while being separated from the Body of the Church.
Minor: But separated Christians in good faith manifestly fulfill the necessary conditions required and given by the Pope.
Conclusion: Hence, separated Christians in good faith, who sincerely seek the Truth etc, can belong to the Soul of the Church.
Corollary: The Dimondism of Ibranyi and Ladislaus is condemnable and worthy of censure from the Magisterium of the Church.
Ladislaus stubbornly rejects this conclusion for this foremost reason - he knows that, if he does, he will have no further reason/excuse, to avoid renouncing his schism and returning to the Roman Catholic Church, as he has admitted in the past.
The Second Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
A Second Syllogism based on an A Fortiori principle:
Major: The Pope teaches that even Baptism itself can be supplied by an Act of Perfect Contrition, along with the Desire of Baptism.
Minor: If Contrition has that effect even before Baptism, then A Fortiori, Contrition will certainly have that Effect even after Baptism.
Conclusion: Therefore, just as Catechumens can enter the Church by Contrition before Baptism, Penitents can enter Her by Contrition after Baptism also [as indeed Pope St. Pius V teaches, against Michael Baius]
Corollary: Hence, all of Catechumens, wrongly excommunicated persons, separated Christians etc, can belong to the Church interiorly, even before reception, by Perfect Contrition and Desire to enter the Church.
Would you like me to paste in the multiple paragraphs that Msgr. Fenton wrote debunking the soul-body bifurcation of the Church?
Now Ladislaus, as if we not already tired of laughing, wants to quote Msgr. Fenton, to prove his erroneous ideas. Why don't you indeed go ahead and quote anything you like from Msgr. Fenton? I can already assure you blindly even without having read it that it will not support your theory and will support what I am saying. What I am saying is taught by St. Augustine and St. Robert, by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, by Msgr. Fenton and Pope Ven. Pius XII himself. Not to mention Pope St. Pius X, whose teaching you disregard. Msgr. Fenton, in the passages you're thinking of, was likely writing who had a mistakenly exaggerated idea of the soul. He himself clearly taught one could be spiritually united to the Church, while not being Her corporal member - which is nothing other than the true Thomistic distinction of Soul/Body in Church. Are you also going to claim St. Robert didn't teach it either next? LOL.
There's no way for the Church to judge, based on the internal forum, that they DO belong to the Church so as to give them the Sacraments. You extrapolate from this mere inability of the Church to judge the internal forum into a false soul-body ecclesiological dichotomy.
This is another false claim. Also, according to Ladislaus, a separated Christian could then very well be in actual fact a Catholic, a corporal member of the Church and even deserving the Sacraments even before the reception of the Sacrament of Penance and visible entry into the Church - according to Ladislaus, there's only a pastoral presumption, and no more, against him receiving the Sacraments. But all this is false and in fact good faith can sometimes be judged externally; and here we will cite St. Augustine in proof, as I already did earlier on this thread: "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm) Note the last phrase. So St. Augustine believed that person to be in good faith.
Yet, St. Augustine did not suggest that person was to be given the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. As he did not belong to Her Body.
-
So you're saying that it's a sacrilege if a pagan wants to be baptized into the Lutheran faith? Ok, I can see that argument. But I would also argue that this person wouldn't be culpable for such a sin, as they are moving in the right direction; they are moving from paganism towards God, who will surely be pleased that they are accepting actual graces. It wouldn't be correct to say that this pagan is WORSE, spiritually speaking (because of the sacrilege), as a Lutheran than as a pagan. That makes no sense. Even the protestants worship God, in a natural way, while pagans don't in any way. At the time that they are baptized, they would be a material heretic, but since they "don't know what they don't know" their culpability is low, at that point.
Remember, it is the Prots who are the ones who protested against, rebelled and left the faith of their own free will - and with that they lost any right to use our sacrament for as long as they choose to remain against the Church. "He that is not with me is against me".
My opinion is that this former pagan, being newly baptized, would be in the state of grace, since they have "accepted Christ into their life". Only when they learn of the Catholic Faith, only when they learn of the differences (and limitations) of the Lutheran religion, and only after they reject the Catholic Truth, would they be guilty of a sacrilege of formal heresy.
I dunno Pax, we all like to think that "once the pagan finds out...", but if he wanted to be baptized into the Catholic Church, then that is where he would be baptized. We all like to think if asked, that the hypothetical pagan would answer with an enthusiastic "Yes, I want to be baptized into the Catholic Church", but the hypothetical pagan would do the same thing that nearly all hypothetical pagans who are about to be baptized do, and in ignorance say, "What's the difference which church I get baptized in, one religion is as good as another."
And if you were to push the issue, your fate would more likely be that of the Apostles, Our Lord and 11 million martyrs of the first few centuries, the North American Martyrs and on and on, because most people do not want to be Catholic, they do not want to be burdened with her laws and rules and morality and etc., that's the reason why most people who are outside of the Church remain outside of the Church and die outside of the Church.
That a sacrilege has been committed is certain. The sacrilege that is committed, is that a protester against the Church, is using a sacrament of the Catholic Church, outside of the Church, which is always against her law. It is further done without her permission and by those who reject her faith, her teachings and her liturgy, and they are using our sacrament as a means of spreading further scandal by using it in the effort of gaining yet more souls in joining them in their error. The Church has made that a sacrilege and has never allowed it under any circuмstances, if I'm wrong I'd like to see a teaching correcting me.
-
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.”
-
I dunno Pax, we all like to think that "once the pagan finds out...", but if he wanted to be baptized into the Catholic Church, then that is where he would be baptized.
I'm speaking of a person who is baptized protestant but doesn't know about Catholicism...not until later in life.
We all like to think if asked, that the hypothetical pagan would answer with an enthusiastic "Yes, I want to be baptized into the Catholic Church", but the hypothetical pagan would do the same thing that nearly all hypothetical pagans who are about to be baptized do, and in ignorance say, "What's the difference which church I get baptized in, one religion is as good as another."
It's not a hypothetical case at all. I've known many people who were baptized protestant, who grew up in rural communities and who hated Catholicism because they were lied to about what the Faith really is. When they became an adult, they were introduced to the True Faith by Traditionalists, converted, and are now married with huge families. As they say, "they didn't know what they didn't know." They were good protestants while young and God gave them the opportunity to see the Truth. Now these examples are rare, but our chapel is filled with these types of stories.
.
The sacrilege that is committed, is that a protester against the Church, is using a sacrament of the Catholic Church, outside of the Church, which is always against her law.
I can see the argument being made that the sacrilege is committed by the "pastor" or the "elders" who know that the Church is true and who lie to the people and preach against Catholicism every chance they get, all the while falsely interpreting the bible to support Protestantism's errors. It makes no sense to me that a pagan, who formerly cared not for God, and who may have even mocked the idea of religion, once he decides to "convert to Christ" is in a worse shape, spiritually speaking, AFTER he is baptized (due to a sacrilege being committed) than before, when he didn't honor God at all as a pagan. This makes no sense.
-
I can see the argument being made that the sacrilege is committed by the "pastor" or the "elders" who know that the Church is true and who lie to the people and preach against Catholicism every chance they get, all the while falsely interpreting the bible to support Protestantism's errors. It makes no sense to me that a pagan, who formerly cared not for God, and who may have even mocked the idea of religion, once he decides to "convert to Christ" is in a worse shape, spiritually speaking, AFTER he is baptized (due to a sacrilege being committed) than before, when he didn't honor God at all as a pagan. This makes no sense.
"Sin is the result of ignorance, weakness and indifference". This truth we pray every ninth day in the Holy Ghost Novena and is supported by other teachings of the Church, Scripture and Fathers.
Ignorance of the truth does not excuse any adult with the use of reason from sin, they may have less culpability than a Catholic - we do not know, but we do know a sin was committed. For all we know, they could be purposely ignorant by having shunned prior divine promptings toward the truth - (this is one of the effects of Original Sin, even after baptism) we do not know, but we do know a sin was committed. If this is false, then ignorance is eternal bliss and the best course to take is to keep 'em as ignorant as possible - and if this were accomplished, then no one ignorant of the true faith could ever sin, there would be salvation outside of the Church and the worst possible thing to have done was for Christ to send out the Apostles and all the missionaries etc.
-
It's not a hypothetical case at all. I've known many people who were baptized protestant, who grew up in rural communities and who hated Catholicism because they were lied to about what the Faith really is. When they became an adult, they were introduced to the True Faith by Traditionalists, converted, and are now married with huge families. As they say, "they didn't know what they didn't know." They were good protestants while young and God gave them the opportunity to see the Truth. Now these examples are rare, but our chapel is filled with these types of stories.
I think most of us have known converts - who thankfully converted, and in doing so gained the same opportunity we have for our hope of salvation. But prior to their conversion, they had no hope - that is the dogma.
-
LOL. Ladislaus can't even bring himself to quote the whole of what the Pope said! Notice that the Pope includes Baptized Christians as well.
The First Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]
Syllogism I from this teaching of Pope St. Pius X:
Major: A Baptized Person can belong to the Soul of the Church, while being separated from the Body of the Church.
Minor: But separated Christians in good faith manifestly fulfill the necessary conditions required and given by the Pope.
Conclusion: Hence, separated Christians in good faith, who sincerely seek the Truth etc, can belong to the Soul of the Church.
Corollary: The Dimondism of Ibranyi and Ladislaus is condemnable and worthy of censure from the Magisterium of the Church.
Ladislaus stubbornly rejects this conclusion for this foremost reason - he knows that, if he does, he will have no further reason/excuse, to avoid renouncing his schism and returning to the Roman Catholic Church, as he has admitted in the past.
The Second Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
A Second Syllogism based on an A Fortiori principle:
Major: The Pope teaches that even Baptism itself can be supplied by an Act of Perfect Contrition, along with the Desire of Baptism.
Minor: If Contrition has that effect even before Baptism, then A Fortiori, Contrition will certainly have that Effect even after Baptism.
Conclusion: Therefore, just as Catechumens can enter the Church by Contrition before Baptism, Penitents can enter Her by Contrition after Baptism also [as indeed Pope St. Pius V teaches, against Michael Baius]
Corollary: Hence, all of Catechumens, wrongly excommunicated persons, separated Christians etc, can belong to the Church interiorly, even before reception, by Perfect Contrition and Desire to enter the Church.
Now Ladislaus, as if we not already tired of laughing, wants to quote Msgr. Fenton, to prove his erroneous ideas. Why don't you indeed go ahead and quote anything you like from Msgr. Fenton? I can already assure you blindly even without having read it that it will not support your theory and will support what I am saying. What I am saying is taught by St. Augustine and St. Robert, by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, by Msgr. Fenton and Pope Ven. Pius XII himself. Not to mention Pope St. Pius X, whose teaching you disregard. Msgr. Fenton, in the passages you're thinking of, was likely writing who had a mistakenly exaggerated idea of the soul. He himself clearly taught one could be spiritually united to the Church, while not being Her corporal member - which is nothing other than the true Thomistic distinction of Soul/Body in Church. Are you also going to claim St. Robert didn't teach it either next? LOL.
This is another false claim. Also, according to Ladislaus, a separated Christian could then very well be in actual fact a Catholic, a corporal member of the Church and even deserving the Sacraments even before the reception of the Sacrament of Penance and visible entry into the Church - according to Ladislaus, there's only a pastoral presumption, and no more, against him receiving the Sacraments. But all this is false and in fact good faith can sometimes be judged externally; and here we will cite St. Augustine in proof, as I already did earlier on this thread: "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm) who had been misguided and had fallen into error (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm), and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm). Were it not that I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm) Note the last phrase. So St. Augustine believed that person to be in good faith.
Yet, St. Augustine did not suggest that person was to be given the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. As he did not belong to Her Body.
I am new here so I do not presume to have the expertise or knowledge to offer an informed opinion. I accept that I may well be wrong.
i) Three times a dogma has been decreed that there can be no salvation outside the Church. Pope Pius X teaching contradict three dogmas.
ii) If non-Catholics can be saved, then rejecting Vatican II is wrong because the whole underlying point of V2 is ecuмenism and inter-religious union. V2 would then makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is only one of MANY roads to salvation.
iii) EENS is paramount because everything that I learned here, on this platform, depends on it. Why not be open to other reforms if we can reform three dogmas, and such critical ones? If dogmas can be surpassed by a Pope (Pius X or John XXII) then certainly doctrine can be surpassed too, and I must adhere to the reforms of V2.
iv) If non-Catholics can be saved, then they are in the Church (it becomes irrelevant if in the mystical body or the mystical soul) and, therefore, Vatican II is merely an expression of this reality.
If there can be no salvation outside the Church, and non-Catholics, including non Christians can be saved, then non-Catholics can be inside the Church. How is this different from Vatican II where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics?
But...
Most important for me, as a father, if what Pope Pius X taught were to be true, then would it not be a safer bet for me, as a father, to keep my daughter in invincible ignorance of our Faith and simply teach her to be a good person?
Why would any one try to adhere to the very difficult precepts of our Faith? What would be the point? Would it not be safer and easier to be invincibly ignorant? Why would parents not hide the Truth for their children for their own sake?
-
But prior to their conversion, they had no hope - that is the dogma.
Well, obviously. That's not what I'm saying at all.
-
Hi Ascanio. This can be a complicated theological dispute sometimes; but the real takeaway is this, (1) Pray, Work and Sacrifice for all to embrace the Catholic Faith, visibly enter the Church, and save their souls. (2) Love every person you meet and try to save them. And I would say, even, in trying to bring an erring person to the Faith, unless the contrary is evident (3) make allowance for possible good faith. That's my opinion. Others may disagree.
Btw, I'm not saying - neither did the Pope - that good faith is sufficient for salvation. In order to be saved, we must die as Catholics, believing in Our Lord Jesus, and being devoted to our Immaculate Mother Mary. Let there be no doubt, that we must give our children the very best Catholic Education that we can provide, teach them from an early age, to (1) Pray the Rosary every day, (2) Wear the Scapular and be Totally Consecrated to the Immaculate Mother of God, (3) Complete the Nine First Fridays, the Five First Saturdays, and the Great Double Novena of Nine Fridays and Saturdays, to the Twin Hearts together, (4) learn the Faith, and (5) become holy.
This is not about any of that at all. The question here, which can be very important for a Catholic Missionary evangelizing Protestants, for e.g. is whether or not separated Christians can sometimes be in good faith. That is an important pastoral matter to be aware of, because if we imagine every Protestant is a formal heretic (when the Church says, those who die as heretics are lost, She is speaking of formal heretics; recall that St. Augustine said those in good faith are not to be accounted heretics), then sometimes that very wrong assumption itself may prevent their returning to the Catholic Faith. I will give the example of a great Catholic Missionary Fr. Arnold Damen, who successfully reconciled 10,000 Protestants to the Catholic Church. Would you agree he did a great Apostolic Work, which all Catholics can admire, be proud of, and strive to imitate in their own measure, as they can, in desiring and working for the conversion of their own friends? I'm not saying we should not work for the conversion of Protestants, Heaven forbid! What I'm saying is they may sometimes be in good faith, and a good Missionary will in fact take that into account, in trying to return them to the Catholic Fold.
"in 1875 remarked that "a letter which arrived while I was there, announced to Father Rector the happy conclusion of a mission at Scranton, with 12,000 Communions, 19 converts, 200 adult First Communions, etc., but I found it was scarcely minded, such items being commonplace there. In 1879, after twenty-two years of excursions from Chicago, it was reckoned that Father Damen had conducted in person 208 missions, averaging two weeks time for each; he had travelled on an average of 6,000 miles each year; he and his different bands of companions together had given 2,800,000 Holy Communions and had made 12,000 conversions to the Faith. At one church in New York a party of his missionaries in the course of four weeks distributed no less than 42,000 Holy Communions." Thomas Hughes, S.J., Ms. notice of Father Damen. It may be interesting to note that General Longstreet was converted during a mission given by Father Damen in New Orleans in February, 1877, and that twenty-seven of Father's converts had been Protestant ministers" https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml (https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml)
Now, let's see how this Missionary Preaches: "Dearly Beloved Christians – When Our Divine Savior sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is Baptized," said the Son of the Living God, "shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned – or is damned. Hence, then, two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith."
So Father begins by calling all of them Christians, not heretics - because not all of them would have been formal heretics. Some would be only in material heresy, what is called good faith. Who does Father say are not Christians at all? Only those who say, they refuse to believe something, that they know Jesus Christ to have taught. "I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess that true religion if he would be saved. But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right; for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all."
This is exactly what St. Thomas taught. A formal heretic knowingly denies something Our Lord has taught. He doesn't care what Scripture teaches, he'll believe whatever he likes rather in the Lord's Teaching. But one in material heresy, or good faith, when the Catholic Faith is sufficiently proposed to him, from the Scripture for e.g. will begin to have doubts in his wrong understanding, and then, if he is of good will, would be gradually enlightened by God about the full Truth, till he arrives at the Catholic Faith. This is something the Church has taught, just as She by Her same authority has taught EENS for those stubbornly separated from Her. How can we uphold one if we deny the other? Both are true.
God Bless.
-
I am new here so I do not presume to have the expertise or knowledge to offer an informed opinion. I accept that I may well be wrong.
Ascanio,
Have you thought about reading an old Catholic book that explains the dogma of EENS? I'll try to locate one online and post a link. In the meantime, I'll answer your questions.
i) Three times a dogma has been decreed that there can be no salvation outside the Church. Pope Pius X teaching contradict three dogmas.
The dogma does not mean it is necessary to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved. If an Orthodox missionary converts a pagan by explaining the basics of the faith, and if the pagan accepts the truth and is baptized, he becomes joined to the Catholic Church imperfectly, but perfectly enough to be saved. If he dies after being baptized by the heretic, and before committing a mortal sin, he will be saved - without having ever met a Catholic priest or even heard of the Catholic Church. That doesn't contradict the dogma of EENS.
ii) If non-Catholics can be saved, then rejecting Vatican II is wrong because the whole underlying point of V2 is ecuмenism and inter-religious union. V2 would then makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is only one of MANY roads to salvation
In the example above, the pagan wasn't saved because of the schism and heresy of the priest who converted and baptized him He was saved because he believed the truth that was presented to him and received the Catholic sacrament of baptism. So, his salvation would not have implied that the Orthodox schism was a "road to salvation".
iii) EENS is paramount because everything that I learned here, on this platform, depends on it. Why not be open to other reforms if we can reform three dogmas, and such critical ones? If dogmas can be surpassed by a Pope (Pius X or John XXII) then certainly doctrine can be surpassed too, and I must adhere to the reforms of V2.
It's not about being open to other forms of EENS. It is about having a correct understanding of the dogma. Pope St. Pius X understood it correctly. Anyone who believes he contradicted it, doesn't.
iv) If non-Catholics can be saved, then they are in the Church (it becomes irrelevant if in the mystical body or the mystical soul) and, therefore, Vatican II is merely an expression of this reality.
A person has to be joined to the Church to be saved, but it is not necessary to be a formal member of the Church to be saved. That is not Vatican II theology. It is traditional theology, as anyone can easily verify by reading a pre-Conciliar catechism, or the writing of any pre-Conciliar theologian. The post Vatican II theology of some is that you have to be a formal card-carrying Catholic to be saved. Ironically, this post-Conciliar error is usually held by those who themselves are outside the Church, such as the Dimond Brothers and other sedevacantists or sedeprivationists. And they can't claim invincible ignorance.
If there can be no salvation outside the Church, and non-Catholics, including non Christians can be saved, then non-Catholics can be inside the Church. How is this different from Vatican II where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics?
No, it says the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The error is implying that the Church of Christ also subsists in other churches, as if the "Church of Christ" is a large multi-denominational entity, with many individual churches and sects that are contained within it. That's the error.
Regarding your statement about non-Catholics being inside the Church, they can be "inside" the Church in the sense of being joined to it. That is, they can be be joined to the Soul of the Church by possessing faith, hope and charity, while being imperfectly united to the Body of the Church by implicit desire. That is basic pre-Vatican II theology. Those who deny it, adhere to false post-Conciliar theology.
But...
Most important for me, as a father, if what Pope Pius X taught were to be true, then would it not be a safer bet for me, as a father, to keep my daughter in invincible ignorance of our Faith and simply teach her to be a good person?
That wouldn't be safe for you or her. For you, it would be a mortal sin of omission. For her, it would almost certainly guarantee that she won't be saved. Just because it is possible for someone to be saved without being a formal member of the Church, doesn't mean it is likely that anyone will be saved without being a formal member of the Church.
-
Catholics can safely ignore the rantings of the schismatic XavierFem ... as well as the Modernist Praeter.
-
This is not about any of that at all. The question here, which can be very important for a Catholic Missionary evangelizing Protestants, for e.g. is whether or not separated Christians can sometimes be in good faith.
False. Everyone needs to ignore this nonsense. "Good faith" and "sincerity" have nothing to do with it. It depends on whether someone has the proper formal motive of faith, i.e. the correct rule of faith. It is possible for someone to be perfectly "sincere" and yet a formal heretic, due to an absence of the appropriate supernatural formal motive of faith.
"Sincerity" has become a Pelagian substitute for having the "formal motive of faith". FORMAL Heresy does NOT mean that someone is "insincere," but rather, merely that one lacks the correct FORMAL motive of faith ... whether sincerely or not.
-
I am new here so I do not presume to have the expertise or knowledge to offer an informed opinion. I accept that I may well be wrong.
i) Three times a dogma has been decreed that there can be no salvation outside the Church. Pope Pius X teaching contradict three dogmas.
ii) If non-Catholics can be saved, then rejecting Vatican II is wrong because the whole underlying point of V2 is ecuмenism and inter-religious union. V2 would then makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is only one of MANY roads to salvation.
iii) EENS is paramount because everything that I learned here, on this platform, depends on it. Why not be open to other reforms if we can reform three dogmas, and such critical ones? If dogmas can be surpassed by a Pope (Pius X or John XXII) then certainly doctrine can be surpassed too, and I must adhere to the reforms of V2.
iv) If non-Catholics can be saved, then they are in the Church (it becomes irrelevant if in the mystical body or the mystical soul) and, therefore, Vatican II is merely an expression of this reality.
If there can be no salvation outside the Church, and non-Catholics, including non Christians can be saved, then non-Catholics can be inside the Church. How is this different from Vatican II where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics?
Very, very close. Pope St. Pius X did not deny the dogma ... for several reasons. Pope St. Pius X clearly taught that a "formal ignorance" (however sincere) was tantamount to formal heresy and was incompatible with supernatural faith. Only a mere MATERIAL ignorance (with formal faith) is not incompatible with supernatural faith. Mere belief in a Baptism of Desire does not necessarily undermine EENS ... provided that one holds it in the classical/Thomistic sense.
But, as for the rest, ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/77/69/cf7769334fc055c58ddc00e39d6d639b.gif)
-
LOL. Ladislaus can't even bring himself to quote the whole of what the Pope said! Notice that the Pope includes Baptized Christians as well.
The First Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]
:facepalm:
Utter buffoon. He's not saying that the Baptized have Baptism of Desire. You can't even read English. Try re-reading this sentence about a dozen times. What he's stating is merely that those who sincerely seek the truth ,WHETHER BAPTIZED OR NOT, are "on the way of salvation". Idiot. Note: this does not even say that they can be saved if they die in that state, just that they are "on the way," or on the right path.
It's garbage like this that make poor Ascanio think that St. Pius X denied EENS.
-
Msgr. Fenton explaining how Pius XII in Humani Generis condemns the soul vs. body explanation for how those outside the visible Church can be saved.
https://archive.org/stream/TheCatholicChurchAndSalvation1958FentonMsgr.JosephClifford5299/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20Salvation%201958%20-%20Fenton%2C%20Msgr.%20Joseph%20Clifford_5299_djvu.txt (https://archive.org/stream/TheCatholicChurchAndSalvation1958FentonMsgr.JosephClifford5299/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20Salvation%201958%20-%20Fenton%2C%20Msgr.%20Joseph%20Clifford_5299_djvu.txt)
THIS IS A BAD OCR JOB IT SEEMS SO LOTS OF TYPOS:
The Encyclical ** Humani generis ”
Explanations of the Church s necessity chawn up in leims
of this distinction were at besi inadequate and confusing and
all too frequently infected with serious error. When the ex-
pression “ soul of the Church was applied to sanctifying
grace and the organism of supernatural virtues that accompany
it, the explanation was confusing in that it stressed the fact
that a man must be in the state of grace, and that he must
have faith and charity if he is to attain to eternal salvation,
but it tended to obscure the truth that a man must m some
maimer be “ within ” the true and visible Catholic Church at
the moment of his death if he is ever to reach the Beati
Vision.
When, on the other hand, some imagin.uy invisible
Church,” some assembly of all the good people in the world,
was designated as the “ soul of the Church, these exp anations
lapsed into doctrinal inaccuracy. The gieat paramount mys
tery of the Church is to be found in the fact that t e visi e
and organized religious society over which the is op
Rome presides as the Vicar of Christ
-
Msgr. Fenton explaining how Pius XII in Humani Generis condemns the soul vs. body explanation for how those outside the visible Church can be saved.
Pius XII did not condemn it and Fenton didn't say he did. What Fenton said is the terminology led some to conclude that there existed an invisible Church to which all the good people belonged.
Pius X used the terminology in his catechism:
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?
A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government. ...
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."
Do you consider Pius X a Modernist?
-
But...
Most important for me, as a father, if what Pope Pius X taught were to be true, then would it not be a safer bet for me, as a father, to keep my daughter in invincible ignorance of our Faith and simply teach her to be a good person?
Why would any one try to adhere to the very difficult precepts of our Faith? What would be the point? Would it not be safer and easier to be invincibly ignorant? Why would parents not hide the Truth for their children for their own sake?
Your reasoning is 100% correct ascanio1, and there are very good reasons to be skeptical of that catechism's teaching regarding this matter.
I could give other examples to justify skepticism of that catechism, but here is one example for your consideration:
The catechism teaches: "Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire".
Why on earth would anyone desire to be supplied the absence of Baptism"? What the catechism is actually saying, is that nothing at all can be supplied by martyrdom or contrition. When understood to mean as it is written, the catechism is actually saying that a BOD / BOB supply the absence of the sacrament, not the sacrament - IOW, a BOB / BOD supply nothing at all.
That is what it is *actually* saying.
BODers want it to say, and read it to say, and understand it to say; "If baptism is missing, then the sacrament of baptism can be supplied by...", but that is not at all what it actually says.
-
Pius X used the terminology in his catechism:
Do you consider Pius X a Modernist?
1) Pius X did not write the catechism
2) The catechism was in Italian, what you are quoting is not in Italian, it is some kind of a translation, we do not know who tampered with it.
3) Throw it away and quote some other sources. If what you say is true, then there would be many real papal decrees, like there are for EENS, of which one would have to discard ALL of them to believe what you are teaching.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. 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”.
-
Pius XII did not condemn it and Fenton didn't say he did. What Fenton said is the terminology led some to conclude that there existed an invisible Church to which all the good people belonged.
Evidently the self-proclaimed genius can't even read English. Pius XII explicitly ruled out the "pneumatic" view of the Church, where the souls of the Church is not co-extensive with the body, this notion that some who do not belong to the body can somehow belong to the soul. No one can be saved unless he's within both the body and the soul of the Church.
Now, Fenton came up with his way of getting non-Catholics in the door anyway, saying that you can be WITHIN the Church without being PART OF the Church, i.e. what I call the "undigested hamburger" ecclesiology. But Fenton correctly rejected as non-Catholics this language that people can be saved by belonging to the soul of the Church without also being in the body.
-
Pius XII did not condemn it and Fenton didn't say he did. What Fenton said is the terminology led some to conclude that there existed an invisible Church to which all the good people belonged.
Pius X used the terminology in his catechism:
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?
A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government. ...
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation."
Do you consider Pius X a Modernist?
Liarslaus has no interest in the Truth, only in his foaming at the mouth polemics filled with bitter zeal. Liarslaus would have argued with Pope St. Pius X also if he had been present here, and then and there would have been excommunicated by the Pope for obstinacy in heresy. If a person stubbornly refuses to believe individuals can belong to the Soul of the Church, through Baptism of Desire before Baptism, and through Perfect Contrition and the Desire of the Sacrament of Penance after Baptism, and stubbornly refuses correction even from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then he or she do not belong to the Body or Soul of the Church.
It is precisely those who do not belong either to the Body or to the Soul - i.e. who are outside Her - who will be lost. EENS means this: Heresy, Schism, Infidelity are mortal sins. If you're culpable for those mortal sins, and die in final impenitence, you are lost. Thus, we have reason to fear many Dimondite and Ibranyist heretics, who are like neo-Jansenists wickedly rising up against the Catholic Church, to their own perdition, may be lost for being culpable formal heretics, unless before death they return to the Church.
Those who are in invincible ignorance, through Acts of Perfect Love of God and Contrition, and Desire for the Sacraments, can enter the Soul of the Church. This is the clear teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X, which is stubbornly rejected by these Jansenists.
The Jansenist proposition that non-Christians receive no influx of Grace from Christ was condemned by the Church. Baius errors that Charity or Love of God does not remit sins in Catechumens and Penitents was also condemned by the Church and by Pope St. Pius V.
Some of the very greatest Popes in history have condemned the faithless heretical Dimonds, Ibranyists and their deluded followers.
-
If a person stubbornly refuses to believe individuals can belong to the Soul of the Church, through Baptism of Desire before Baptism, and through Perfect Contrition and the Desire of the Sacrament of Penance after Baptism, and stubbornly refuses correction even from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then he or she do not belong to the Body or Soul of the Church.
St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII (as interpreted by Msgr. Fenton) are easily reconcilable ... if one doesn't distort the meaning of St. Pius X as XavierSem does.
I refuse correction only from XavierSem, who distorts and misinterprets the Magisterium but then claims that his interpretation is in fact the Magisterium.
XavierSem first of all could not even parse the English of St. Pius X in absurdly claiming that the baptized could also be saved by Baptism of Desire.
Then XavierSem interprets "belonging to the soul of the Church" to mean that they were in the Church. Notice how St. Pius X also said that the Old Testament just "spiritually belonged to the Church." This does not mean they were in the Church, since there was no Church yet. This merely put them on a trajectory to enter the Church, once the Church was established.
Similarly, those who sincerely seek the truth are "on the WAY of salvation". SEEKING and being "ON THE WAY" clearly indicates that they have not yet arrived at the destination. Like the Old Testmanent just mentioned in the previous question, they were ON THE WAY.
Both only ARRIVE AT salvation upon finally entering the Church.
But the Church is Body and Soul United. No one is WITHIN the Church until one has entered the Church's Body AND Soul, as Msgr. Fenton explains, since the Body and Soul of the Church are co-extensive. This notion that the soul of the Church somehow extends outside of the boundaries of the body is an error.
In no way was St. Pius X teaching that anyone can be saved by belonging to the soul of the Church alone. This comes only from XavierSem's confirmation bias in attempting to find support for EENS-denial in St. Pius X.
-
Those who are in invincible ignorance, through Acts of Perfect Love of God and Contrition, and Desire for the Sacraments, can enter the Soul of the Church.
How is it possible for a person to desire baptism, since he's "invincibly" ignorant that it even exists? It's impossible and illogical. You can't desire what you don't know. Philosophy 101.
-
Those who are in invincible ignorance, through Acts of Perfect Love of God and Contrition, and Desire for the Sacraments, can enter the Soul of the Church.
LiarSem pretends that St. Pius X teaches that the sincere "enter" the Soul of the Church. What St. Pius X ACTUALLY says is that they "spiritually belong to the Church" (Old Testament just) and are "united to the Soul of the Church" (sincerely seeking truth in the new dispensation). At no point does St. Pius X (assuming he even wrote this, which is highly disputed) say that they ENTER the Soul of the Church, as LiarSem mendaciously claims.
Imagine a child hugging a stuffed animal tightly. Does that animal belong to the child? Yes. Is that animal united with and attached to the child? Yes. Is that stuffed animal part of the child? Is that stuffed animal inside the child? Has it entered the child? Another epic fail from XavierSem, attempting to distort Church teaching through the filters of his own confirmation bias.
-
Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis that "the Holy Spirit is [the] ... Soul [of the Church]"
Trent teaches that it is the Holy Spirit that inspires the soul to move towards justification in the Church.
Belonging to the soul of the Church and therefore being on the way of salvation refers to this movement towards justification, but it not yet "justification itself" which "follows" (both quotes from Trent).
-
1) Pius X did not write the catechism
2) The catechism was in Italian, what you are quoting is not in Italian, it is some kind of a translation, we do not know who tampered with it.
3) Throw it away and quote some other sources. If what you say is true, then there would be many real papal decrees, like there are for EENS, of which one would have to discard ALL of them to believe what you are teaching.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. 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”.
Ladislaus,
Why do you say Pius X said? He didn't write that catechism. Read the above. I can understand XavierSem saying that, he has nothing from any pope, but why do you repeat what he says, that "Pius X wrote"?
-
Invincible Ignorance is old school, not used anymore for obvious reasons (see below (*). Now they just say that the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew.... people in all religions can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards. Yes, any of the 1000's of gods.
(*)
Hindu asks - Do you think that Mahatma Ghandi was saved?
XavierSem - Oh, yes, he could have been saved because he was invincible ignorant
Hindu - Say what?
XavierSem - Oh yes, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew.... people in all religions can be saved if they are Invincible ignorant.
Hindu - But didn't the Holy Office under Pius X say that Confucius is in Hell?
XavierSem - Oh, Just ignore Pius X, only listen to the Catechism in English with his name on it, I'll interpret it for you,trust me, forget about the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. 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”.
-
Ladislaus,
Why do you say Pius X said? He didn't write that catechism. Read the above. I can understand XavierSem saying that, he has nothing from any pope, but why do you repeat what he says, that "Pius X wrote"?
I qualified that at one point that it was highly doubtful he wrote it. I did not repeat that qualification every single time. I will not categorically say that he did not write it. He issued the catechism in 1908. How much of that he actually wrote himself is not known, but he did issue it himself. Now, an abridged version appeared in 1930. So at that point, who can know what was done to it? It's also been "translated." I would like to see the Original 1908 copy. But I can neither confirm NOR DENY that he wrote these things. I explain, however, that there was nothing wrong with what was written in the citation ... even if it was very inopportune given the climate of growing EENS-denial.
-
I have a sincere question for the baptism of desire deniers. I am assuming you all know BOD is taught in all the pre-Conciliar theological manuals and catechism, and was universally held by all before Fr. Feeney came along. Assuming you are aware of that, here's my question.
Does it cause you any concern to know that what you believe concerning salvation differs from what all the trained theologians believed and taught prior to Vatican II? And the difference is not merely at the level of the conclusion. It is deeper. The difference is at the level of the premises you are using to arrive at your conclusion, or rather in the theology you are basing your conclusions upon. The difference in the conclusions is the result of a different theology. Your theology differs from that of all the approved theologians prior to Vatican II. It differs from that of the seminary professors, from the priests who were ordained by them, and from the bishops, Cardinals and Popes. And errors at the level of theology are dangerous. How can that not bother you?
The only answer I can come up with is that you're not aware that BOD was an undisputed doctrine prior to Vatican II. But how could you not know that? Anyway, I am sincerely curious to understand your thinking.
-
The large amount of ink being spilled on this forum is not in regards to baptism of desire for catechumens.
What ought to be pounded in everyone's heads is the necessity of the Catholic faith, get that across and this subforum will die down. There would be far less posting.
-
I deny there can be Hindus, Jews, Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, etc. in the state of sanctifying grace.
If such are in a state of invincible ignorance, God being merciful, will send them either a priest, or if necessary an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith and see to it that they are brought into the fold.
God will see them saved by the "efficacious virtue of divine light and grace", He will not let them remain in their ignorance.
-
Pius IX - 1849
Nostis Et Nobiscuм
On the Church in the Pontifical States
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9nostis.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9nostis.htm)
10. 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.
From the letter "Super quibusdam" to the Consolator, the Catholicon of the Armenians, Sept. 20, 1351:
Denzinger 1051 570b
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dw1.htm (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dw1.htm)
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 of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.
Mirari Vos
On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism
Gregory XVI - 1832
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm)
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.
Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] 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,”[17] 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.”
-
Pope Gregory XVI - 1832
Summo Iugiter Studio, On Mixed Marriages
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm)
2. Therefore, guided by the example of Our predecessors, We are grieved to hear reports from your dioceses which indicate that some of the people committed to your care freely encourage mixed marriages. Furthermore, they are promoting opinions contrary to the Catholic faith:
(. . .)
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.
-
Is a person who is flooded with divine light and grace going to remain invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith? Are such going to remain sitting in darkness, ignorant of this faith, without which no man can be saved?
Pius IX
On Promotion of False Doctrines, 1863
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm)
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
19.
(. . .)
Let us pray that the errant be flooded with the light of his divine grace, may turn back from the path of error into the way of truth and justice and, experiencing the worthy fruit of repentance, may possess perpetual love and fear of his holy name.
Leo XIII
On Mission Societies, 1880
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13mis.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13mis.htm)
6.
(. . .)
Do men like these pour forth their prayers to God that in His mercy he may bring to the Divine light of the Gospel by His victorious grace the people sitting in the darkness?
-
St. Thomas Aquinas
Quaestiones disputatae de veritate
Question Fourteen: Faith
ARTICLE XI: In the eleventh article we ask: Is it necessary to believe explicitly?
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/g3i.htm
Answers to Difficulties
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).
Pope Pius XI - 1928
Mortalium Animos
On Religious Unity
13.
(. . .)
We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity.
-
I absolutely deny that a person whose public profession of faith is their Hinduism, Pharisaical Judaism, Protestantism, Eastern Schism, etc. can be united to the body of the Church by desire, and in fact united to the soul of the Church.
Such a union would destroy the unity of faith. Many claim that such persons in so-called "good faith" are actually Catholics. You tell me, what are they professing in their day to day lives? What faith are they professing? What places of worship do they visit, what faith do they tell their neighbors they belong to? What faith do they practice? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that such souls are to be counted as Catholic? What of all the quotes above? What of divine light and grace? Will they be enlightened or NOT?
-
1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament
https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n2729 (https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n2729)
Hebrew 11:6
page 630:
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that commeth to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.
Annotations, Chapter 11
page 632:
https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n2731 (https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n2731)
6. He that commeth. Faith is the foundation and ground of all other virtues, and worship of God, without which no man can please God. Therefore if one be a Jew, a heathen, or an heretic, that is to say, he be without the Catholic faith, all his works shall profit him no whit to salvation.
-
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/salvation2-4b.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/salvation2-4b.htm)
St. Peter Canisius
Outside this communion, as outside the Ark of Noah, there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church; not for heretics who, having received it, forsook or corrupted it; not for schismatics who left the peace and unity of the Church; and finally, neither for excommunicated persons who for any other serious cause deserved to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members. For the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: that man will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his Mother.
Saint John Eudes
Man's Contract with God in Baptism, pages 49 - 52
https://archive.org/details/MansContractWithGodInBaptism/page/n45 (https://archive.org/details/MansContractWithGodInBaptism/page/n45)
That you may have a true faith in those things which God has revealed, it is necessary that you should believe in the Catholic Church, in which alone you can learn with certainty what God has revealed. For this reason, after you have been asked if you believe in God, you are also asked if you believe in the Catholic Church.
Certainly those who do not believe in the Catholic Church cannot have divine faith in the mysteries which they believe, but only natural and human faith; a faith of their own fancy, founded on the light of their own judgment, subject to error, and not on the promises of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church alone possesses these promises, and on her testimony alone rests the foundation of Christian faith. As she possesses the divine promises for all days, even to the end of ages, there can be no reason to doubt whatever she proposes to our belief.
Thank God for having given you the precious gift of faith, and having made you a child of the holy Catholic Church, which is the faithful repository of the truths of salvation, and which all Christians are obliged to acknowledge as the true Church. In saying, “I believe in the holy Catholic Church’ you united yourself inseparably to this holy mother; you believe, without hesitation, all that she proposes, as proposed to you by Jesus Christ himself, who is ever with her in her instructions. Reject, then, with horror, everything at variance with her teachings, and regard it as an error calculated to endanger your faith.
However ignorant you may be, you have the true faith if you believe, without exception, all the holy Catholic Church believes and teaches; on the other hand, however learned you may be, you lose the gift and the virtue of faith if you reject any doctrine which she teaches; for her faith is your rule. “As there is but one faith,” says St. Paul, “to wish to divide it, is to destroy it.” Heretics not only differ from the Church in faith, but they also differ amongst themselves, a proof that they have not the true faith, which is one. The holy Catholic Church never has suffered, and never will suffer, a difference of faith in regard to any article. Her faith is the same in all times, in all places, and in all her true children. Thus her faith is one and the only true faith. You should be most desirous to preserve the faith in all its purity, since without it, it is impossible to do anything which merits Heaven. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Those who do not possess it may practice all the moral virtues, justice, sobriety, chastity, alms-deeds, prayers, mortification; and not only is this the case with heretics, but it is a truth which should be borne in mind, that these good actions, unless they have faith for their principle, will never merit Heaven for them. The law of Moses, all holy as it was, could save only those who observed it through faith.
When, therefore, you observe that those who believe not in the Church, practice some good works, offer many prayers, and lead an austere life, do not believe that they are on this account in the way of salvation, unless they have true faith; you commit an ENORMOUS SIN if you believe that they can be saved outside of the Church; that they can have faith without believing in her, or that they can be saved without faith.
-
Pius IX
Allocution to the cardinals on the Consistory of the 17th of December, 1847:
The life of Pope Pius IX and the great events in the history of the Church during his pontificate by John Gilmary Shea, published 1877, pgs. 97 - 103
https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX1877 (https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX1877)
It is assuredly not unknown to you, venerable brethren, that in our times many of the enemies of the Catholic faith especially direct their efforts toward placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or of 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, men have appeared who have thrown such reproaches upon our name and apostolic dignity, that they do not hesitate to slander us, as if we shared in their folly and favored the aforesaid most wicked system. (. . .) 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 us.
-
Praeter,
Read those quotes, and you tell me, will such souls be enlightened or not?
-
Praeter,
Read those quotes, and you tell me, will such souls be enlightened or not?
Well, you answered my question and I appreciate your reply. I now realize why people reject BOD, or at least why some people reject it (such as yourself). Not of course because BOD is wrong, or contrary to anything you quoted. BOD is at least theologically certain and probably de fide, but I do now understand why some people reject it.
-
Since my last comments on this thread there were many interesting new posts and, for me, useful ones. I would like to discuss these later, this weekend, as soon as I find time. But one quick reply, to Last Tardhican and Praeter:
1) Pius X did not write the catechism
2) The catechism was in Italian, what you are quoting is not in Italian, it is some kind of a translation, we do not know who tampered with it.
3) Throw it away and quote some other sources. If what you say is true, then there would be many real papal decrees, like there are for EENS, of which one would have to discard ALL of them to believe what you are teaching.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. 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 found an original, Italian version of Pius X catechism that was used especially in Rome and not in all of Italy at the time (so I am told). Praeter's translation is not conform to the original. The booklet also states that it was authored by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of Faith and the name Pius X seems to be more the mere title of the booklet rather than the name of the author.
I also found, elsewhere, the citation that LT inserted in bold face, made by the same congregation.
----------------------------
I am but an ignorant newcomer who is still studying and, as such, I appreciate all corrections and thank anyone who invests his time to help me educate me (I am getting really confused on this EENS topic) so, please, forgive me if my next question is really simple and stupid:
Why would God create the church if it was not necessary for salvation?
-
The only answer I can come up with is that you're not aware that BOD was an undisputed doctrine prior to Vatican II. But how could you not know that? Anyway, I am sincerely curious to understand your thinking.
To answer your question, I do not believe it is / was either a doctrine nor undisputed pre-V2. It always was and still is pure speculation, or "imaginary theology" as Fr. Wathen called it, who also wrote: "There is no doubt that St. Thomas believed there is such a thing as "baptism of desire." This does not mean that we are bound to agree with him, and that those who do not are heretics. Those who do not accept the [infallible] teaching of Popes Innocent, Boniface, and Eugene are heretics".
Now, my question to you and all BODers is; how is it that you all do not see the stark contradiction between defined dogma, Scripture, Divine Providence, and all of the other teachings from catechisms and the Fathers contrary to a BOD, and a BOD?
-
Praeter I believe iin your sincerity when you say you are curious to understand the thinking of those who reject BOD. I am no spring-chicken and for many years have always THOUGHT that people can be invincibly ignorant and that a good God could not deny them salvation through no fault of their own. Everyone I knew thought the same way even teachers and priests. I will do the best I can to explain my thoughts. If you ask me to quote something or prove this or that I will not be able to do so. I can only speak from my heart.
It astounds me still, that having read through so much material here on Cath Info I have arrived with the certainty of faith that BOD has no foundation in the Church’s teaching and that it is a great universal kind of sin (if you like) against Our Lord’s very own Word(s).
I have only had my basic catechism to teach me the truths of my Catholic faith. I truly appreciate the solid material provided by Ladislaus, Stubborn and Pax Vobis who obviously know canon law and the teachings of the Councils - this particular one being the Council of Trent. Their perseverance and patience in answering the same questions over and over again have been an inspiration and it has been sad to see their charitable dealings with the many people who have insulted them for their efforts.
If Our Lord did not mean specifically and exactly what he said then I could not trust Him. I would not have the Faith at all. And I have only just realised that!
I have seen quite clearly that the argument for BOD came from fallible human beings no matter if they became saints during their lifetimes and/or canonised saints after death. When presented with the de fide teachings of the Church the debris of human additions are swept away and one is left with a great sense of God’s providence that he will keep his Promise to send even an angel from heaven when a man truly, truly longs for, and wants to be forgiven his sins; a man, who, once he hears that he can get rid of the stain of original sin such a man would break his neck to go about ridding himself of it; a man who cannot wait to start on the road to true contrition by being baptised then going on the straight path through the other Sacraments to his eternal salvation.
It has magnified my sense of true sorrow at the enormous grief caused to Our Lord by my own ignorance over the years and which now hit me starkly in the face when I see today’s Shepherds worshipping their evil gods where everybody is welcome to come and throw mud at our Saviour.
To keep justifying BOD is to help Pope Francis send souls to hell.
______________________
As an aside and so as keep this observation separate I would like to mention Fr. Feeney here.
Fr. Feeney’s name was always used in a condemnatory way. I never bothered to find out anything about him - I just believed he must have been a bad priest. I have come to believe that most Catholics think of him that way right up to this very day.
A charitable member gave me the link to the whole Boston saga history which I have since posted in the Library section of CI.
Also posted there is Bread of Life which if anyone reads will be overcome by the beauty of his very soul as he demonstrates his great love of Mother Church; her Sacraments and much much more. Reading through how he was persecuted and betrayed by his superiors shows how the devil must have been really scared of him. It is an eye-opener to see how the Jesuit order subsequently declined - eventually producing our Jesuit Pope Francis in all his humility.
-
Praeter I believe iin your sincerity when you say you are curious to understand the thinking of those who reject BOD.
I don't.
-
I have a sincere question for the baptism of desire deniers. I am assuming you all know BOD is taught in all the pre-Conciliar theological manuals and catechism, and was universally held by all before Fr. Feeney came along. Assuming you are aware of that, here's my question.
There have been 100 threads on this subject. Use the search engine.
-
I don't.
It was a sincere question.
-
Pius X used the terminology in his catechism:
Do you consider Pius X a Modernist?
1) Pius X did not write the catechism
2) The catechism was in Italian, what you are quoting is not in Italian, it is some kind of a translation, we do not know who tampered with it.
3) Throw it away and quote some other sources. If what you say is true, then there would be many real papal decrees, like there are for EENS, of which one would have to discard ALL of them to believe what you are teaching.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. 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”.
Let me see, Pius X didn't write the catechism, the catechism is not infallible, you have a tampered translation, and the line you are quoting does not say what you say.
Meanwhile, you deny all of these clear infallible dogmas written by many different popes and councils.
Do you consider all those popes idiots?
Dogmas are the final word from the Holy Ghost, 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. 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.
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. 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.
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, any person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy!
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 ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jews can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)
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, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a god that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a god that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it, their belief in a god that rewards)
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.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a god that rewards)
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.” (Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
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…”
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire “implicit” desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions for the water baptism, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
Chapter VII. What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
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.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is belief in a god that rewards)
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 orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” ( persons who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
(Oh, I forgot invincible ignorance, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invincible ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)
-
I
absolutely deny that a person whose public profession of faith is their Hinduism, Pharisaical Judaism, Protestantism, Eastern Schism, etc. can be united to the body of the Church by desire, and in fact united to the soul of the Church.
Then you deny the Dogma of the Catholic Church. Your quarrel is not with anyone else other than with Pope St. Pius X, St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, St. Robert, St. Thomas etc.
The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 2: "Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible."
De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”. http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
Also, those who are Dimondite heretics don't belong to the Body of the Church, since you reject the Episcopal Body of the Church. Better hope that you can at least belong to Her Soul by not being obstinate against Her, otherwise you do not belong to Her in any way at all.
I refuse correction only from XavierSem, who distorts and misinterprets the Magisterium but then claims that his interpretation is in fact the Magisterium.
The Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.has clearly taught Baptism of Desire. If you stubbornly reject Baptism of Desire, you are an obstinate heretic, and you can never go to Heaven. Better don't do that, but retract your opinion, and come back to the Catholic Faith, without which you cannot save your soul.
Notice how St. Pius X also said that the Old Testament just "spiritually belonged to the Church."
Thanks for pointing out yet another refutation of your stupidity. The OT just spiritually belonged to the Church because they were JUST i.e. justified, and therefore in the Church. The Holy Father refutes you in this way as well. Catholic Theologians have long known and taught the OT Just had one sole means of justification, to obtain remission of sin, Perfect Contrition.
III. IS IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE AN ACT OF PERFECT CONTRITION? No doubt, it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect Contrition than an Imperfect one, which suffices when we go to Confession. But still, there is no one who, if he sincerely wishes it, cannot, with the grace of God, make an act of Perfect Contrition. Sorrow is in the will, not in the senses or feelings. All that is needed is that we repent because we love God above everything else; that is all. True it is that Perfect Contrition has its degrees, but it is none the less perfect because it does not reach the intensity and sublimity of the sorrow of St. Peter, of St. Mary Magdalene, or of St. Aloysius. Such a degree is very desirable, but is by no means necessary. A lesser degree, but, provided it proceeds from the love of God, and not through fear of His punishments, is quite sufficient. And it is very consoling to remember that for the 4000 years before the coming of Christ the only means sinners had of obtaining pardon was this same Perfect Contrition. There was no Sacrament of Penance in those days. Even today for thousands-aye, for millions-of pagans, of non-Catholics, and of Catholics, too, who have no time to call a priest to their bedside, the only means of pardon and salvation is an act of Perfect Contrition. https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml)
This does not mean they were in the Church, since there was no Church yet
What stupidity. You may as well say, they were not incorporated in Christ yet. Of course they were incorporated in Christ, and in that way they belong to Him spiritually. One has to belong to the Church either corporally or spiritually in order to be saved.
being "ON THE WAY"
Wrong again. They are on the way to salvation because they are in the Ark spiritually. Those outside the Ark are on the way to damnation, and therefore cannot be said on the way to salvation along with Catholics. The OT Just were on the way of salvation, since they were justified. The OT unjust, who finally became reprobate, were not in any way on the way of salvation.
No one is WITHIN the Church until one has entered the Church's Body AND Soul, as Msgr. Fenton explains, since the Body and Soul of the Church are co-extensive.
More lies from Liarslaus. Msgr. Fenton clearly says one can be spiritually within the Church without being a corporal member of Hers. Msgr. Fenton was only correcting an abusive misunderstanding of the soul of the Church, in that passage that Ladislaus wrests to his own destruction.
EENS-denial in St. Pius X.
Get it through your thick skull once and for all that the Dogma of Baptism of Desire does not contradict the Dogma of EENS.
EENS means: Heretics who are obstinate cannot save their soul. Why? Heresy is a mortal sin. Those who commit it are certainly outside the Church.
EENS does not mean: Separated Christians who err in good faith are outside the Church. They can be united to the Soul of the Church through Perfect Contrition or Desire.
BOD means: Non-Christians and Catechumens, who are in good faith, and who have made an Act of Perfect Contrition can be united to the Soul of the Church through Desire.
BOD does not mean: Those who are formal heretics, formal schismatics, positive infidels etc can be saved. These are culpable for their mortal sins and outside the Church.
Invincible ignorance means: There is no culpability for the mortal sin of heresy, schism or infidelity respectively.
Perfect Contrition means: The Desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism or Penance (before and after Baptism respectively), animated by supernatural charity or contrition.
-
On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
What obstinate pride to think you know better than St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X and all the Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Catholic Church.
Imagine a child hugging a stuffed animal tightly.
An absurdity of the first order that is not at all analogous.
Nothing can belong to my soul without being inside me.
If Grace belongs to my soul, it is obvious Grace is inside me.
If my soul is united to God, it is obvious I am in God and God is in me.
There is a difference between belonging to the soul and to the body.
But those who belong to the soul are in the Church contra Ladislaus.
Baptism of Desire is itself the Perfect Providence of God for all.
What contemptuous hatred for other souls and desire for them to be lost that some of you have.
How absolutely far you are from the Spirit of God, Who is not willing that any should be lost, but that all should to come to the Truth, Who is Christ, and be saved; and from the Father, Who is not willing that any should perish but all come to contrition.
You want yourself to have access to Perfect Contrition for all the many daily mortal sins you commit, but you sinfully want to deny it to others. Well, you have no power at all to bind God, and God has already told us He moves souls to contrition, by uniting them to the Soul of the Church.
A true Catholic Missionary, imitating his Divine Master, has love for souls and desire to save them.
A reprobate Dimondite heretic, imitating his satanic master, has hatred for souls and desire to damn them.
-
XavierSem,
Please answer the below question. I am posting it again.
.
XavierSem said: Those who are in invincible ignorance, through Acts of Perfect Love of God and Contrition, and Desire for the Sacraments, can enter the Soul of the Church.
.
My question: How is it possible for a person to desire baptism, since he's "invincibly" ignorant that it even exists?
-
XavierSem,
Please answer the below question. I am posting it again.
.
XavierSem said: Those who are in invincible ignorance, through Acts of Perfect Love of God and Contrition, and Desire for the Sacraments, can enter the Soul of the Church.
.
My question: How is it possible for a person to desire baptism, since he's "invincibly" ignorant that it even exists?
This below excerpt should answer your question, Pax Vobis. Let me know if it does not.
"Now, if it is true that God does not wish the death of a sinner, it follows that He does not wish to impose on His creatures a contrition or sorrow beyond their powers, but one that is within the reach of everyone. And so, if millions of poor creatures who, through no fault of their own, live and [visibly] die outside the True Fold, if these can obtain the grace of Perfect Contrition, do you imagine, dear reader, that it will be difficult for you-you who enjoy the happiness of being a Christian and a Catholic, and so are capable of receiving much greater graces than they-you who are far better instructed in things divine than the poor infidels are?
But I dare to go even further. Often, very often, without even thinking of it, you have Perfect Contrition for your sins. For example, when you hear Mass devoutly or make the Stations of the Cross properly; when you reflect before your crucifix or an image of the Sacred Heart. What is more, every time you say the 'Our Father,' in the first three petitions you make three acts of perfect charity, each of which is sufficient to cancel every sin from your soul.
Very often, a few words suffice to express the most ardent love and the most profound sorrow -for instance, the little ejaculations, 'My Jesus, mercy,' 'My God and my All,' 'My God, I love Thee above all things,' 'My God, have mercy on me, a poor sinner.' Aided by the grace of God (and God has promised to give to all who ask), it is by no means difficult to make an Act of Contrition. Take the case of David, who for one curious look fell into the sin of adultery, and then of murder. Having committed these sins, he lived on quite unconcerned about the state of his soul till the prophet Nathan came to reprove him. And this reproach induced David to make an act of Perfect Contrition in a few words, 'Pec- cavi Domino' ('I have sinned against the Lord'). So efficacious was his contrition that the prophet, inspired by God, exclaimed, 'The Lord has forgiven you.'
Take, again, the case of Mary Magdalen�'a public sinner. She did not even say one word, but simply wept at the Feet of Jesus. Jesus saw the sorrow in her heart, and, turning to her, said: 'Woman! because thou hast loved much thy sins are forgiven thee.' See, then, how little is needed-only to love God above everything. And love demands neither time nor trouble; it suffices to think of Jesus crucified, for it is impossible then not to love Him, and to be sorry for the sins by which we have crucified Him.
Remember the good thief -a robber condemned to death-and yet for those few words spoken from his heart, 'Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy Kingdom,' he was immediately promised Heaven by Christ Himself: 'Today, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.'
Lastly, look at St. Peter, who denied his Master three times. Jesus looked at him; Peter said not a single word, but, 'going out, wept bitterly.' He was forgiven; he was chosen by Christ to be His first successor on earth-the Prince of the Apostles- and to-day is one of the most glorious saints in Heaven.
Dear readers, should we ever have the misfortune to offend God, let us give a look at the tabernacle where Jesus is palpitating with love for us, or let us think of Calvary. Our hearts will be touched. We will repent. We shall be forgiven and saved."
-
That didn't answer the question at all.
-
Read it carefully and properly. It contains the answer. Reflect on the questions, how were King David, St. Mary Magdalene etc forgiven?
Consider this one also: Are you bound to confess all your sins in number and kind by divine law in order to be forgiven? Yes.
But suppose you happen to be invincibly ignorant of a former sin, can you still be forgiven? If God applied your rigorist ways, then no.
But, because God is Merciful to those who show Mercy, and Loves those who love and desire the salvation of all, those who are sincerely contrite for all their sins - which universal contrition implicitly includes every former sin, even forgotten sins - can receive the remission of them all.
It is similar. This is an example of having an implicit desire contained in a universal desire of contrition, to do all that God Wills out of Perfect Love for Him. Read the clear explanation given earlier from St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church, as well.
-
But what does contrition for sins have to do with desiring baptism? Nothing. Trent mentions contrition for sins as a REQUIREMENT to be baptized (which is a newness of life). Trent does NOT say that such contrition = desire for the sacrament. You mix the two together and this is anti-Catholic.
.
Again, 3rd time, how does an invincibly ignorant person desire baptism (which desire Trent requires) if he does not know baptism exists?
.
How does an invincibly ignorant person make a "perfect" act of contrition, if he doesn't even know Jesus, or His Church, or the True God? Jesus told us that "no man cometh to the Father except through Me." Yet you say it's possible for an ignorant person to go to the Father without knowing Jesus or His Church? That's so wrong on so many levels.
-
Praeter I believe iin your sincerity when you say you are curious to understand the thinking of those who reject BOD. I am no spring-chicken and for many years have always THOUGHT that people can be invincibly ignorant and that a good God could not deny them salvation through no fault of their own.
I appreciate your reply. I'll comment to some of the points you made.
Regarding invincible ignorance, do you know what that is referring to? When it is said someone who is invincibly ignorant can possibly be saved, do you know what the Church means the person is invincibly ignorant of (the object)? They are invincibly of the Catholic Church. What that means is explicit knowledge of the Catholic Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation. That's what invincible ignorance is referring to.
Everyone I knew thought the same way even teachers and priests.
Have you ever considered that the reason everyone believed it is because it is true, and that you are the one that is mistaken?
It astounds me still, that having read through so much material here on Cath Info I have arrived with the certainty of faith that BOD has no foundation in the Church’s teaching and that it is a great universal kind of sin (if you like) against Our Lord’s very own Word(s).
So the entire Church embraced a doctrine with no foundation in Church teaching, and which explicitly denies our Lord's very words?
I have only had my basic catechism to teach me the truths of my Catholic faith. I truly appreciate the solid material provided by Ladislaus, Stubborn and Pax Vobis who obviously know canon law and the teachings of the Councils - this particular one being the Council of Trent.
Canon law says catechumens who die unbaptized are to be treated as if they were baptized. Why do you think it says that? The only ones who interpret Trent as contradicting BOD are the Feeneyites. The Church herself, and every approved author that has commented directly addressed the issue, has interpreted Trent as teaching BOD.
Their perseverance and patience in answering the same questions over and over again have been an inspiration and it has been sad to see their charitable dealings with the many people who have insulted them for their efforts.
I wonder if Zwingly said the same about Luther.
If Our Lord did not mean specifically and exactly what he said then I could not trust Him. I would not have the Faith at all. And I have only just realised that!
Our Lord also said we must eat His Flesh AND drink His blood in order to have eternal life. "Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." (John 6: 54-55)
Do you believe Him? If so, how can a child be saved before receiving their first communion, and how can an adult be saved without receiving communion under both forms? If you do believe it is possible for a baptized child to be saved before receiving communion, or for any of the billions of Catholic laity over the past 2000 years to have been saved without receiving communion under both forms, then you don't believe Our Lord meant "specifically and exactly what he said" and therefore, according to your reasoning, you also don't trust Him.
I have seen quite clearly that the argument for BOD came from fallible human beings no matter if they became saints during their lifetimes and/or canonised saints after death.
And the denial of BOD didn't?
When presented with the de fide teachings of the Church
Think about what you are saying. Do you really believe the entire Church would have believed an error that was contrary to a de fide teaching of the Church? What you were presented with is the private interpretation of Church teaching by Feeneyite heretics.
a man who cannot wait to start on the road to true contrition by being baptised then going on the straight path through the other Sacraments to his eternal salvation.
Be sure not to skip the Sacrament of communion under both forms. And for that you'll have to go to the Novus Ordo Mass. The NO is necessary or salvation!
As an aside and so as keep this observation separate I would like to mention Fr. Feeney here. ... Also posted there is Bread of Life which if anyone reads will be overcome by the beauty of his very soul as he demonstrates his great love of Mother Church;
Fr. Feeney said a person can be justified - receive the state of grace - without water baptism. Did you know that? And guess why he believed that? He believed it because that's how he interpreted the Council of Trent taught it. Fr. Feeney himself interpreted the teaching that a person can be transferred into the state of righteousness "by the desire" for baptism, as meaning a person could enter into the state of grace without water baptism. He didn't think a person could be saved, but he did think they could be justified. Fr. Feenye's novelty forced him to admit (in The Bread of Life) that he didn't know where a person would go if they died in the state of grace without being baptized.
-
Do you consider all those popes idiots?
Do you believe this dogma, as it is written? "'We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
The dogma states explicitly that it is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Pope to be saved. No exceptions. If you believe the dogma, as it is written, you must conclude that it is impossible for a sedevacantist or anyone who dies during an interregnum to be saved. So, which is it: do you agree that every person who dies as a sedevacantist will go to hell (as I do), or do you deny the dogma?
-
Regarding invincible ignorance, do you know what that is referring to? When it is said someone who is invincibly ignorant can possibly be saved, do you know what the Church means the person is invincibly ignorant of (the object)? They are invincibly of the Catholic Church. What that means is explicit knowledge of the Catholic Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation. That's what invincible ignorance is referring to.
So many people use the terms 'explicit' and 'implicit' incorrectly that one would think dictionaries don't exist.
.
If one is invincibly ignorant of the Church, then they are both EXPLICITLY and IMPLICITLY ignorant. That's what "invincible" means - 100% ignorant.
.
How can one implicitly have knowledge of a Church he is 100% ignorant of? It makes absolutely no sense, which is why it's heresy.
-
And how does one become "subject to the Roman Pontiff"?
One becomes subject to the Holy Father at Baptism (this is taught by Trent). Beyond Baptism, one can formal intent to sever this subjection by going into schism.
-
Be sure not to skip the Sacrament of communion under both forms. And for that you'll have to go to the Novus Ordo Mass.
Receiving the Eucharist in the form of a host is the same as receiving the 'body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ' which fulfills His command. Is your catechism that bad, that you think the Eucharist in bread form, does not contain Our Lord fully?
-
Receiving the Eucharist in the form of a host is the same as receiving the 'body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ' which fulfills His command. Is your catechism that bad, that you think the Eucharist in bread form, does not contain Our Lord fully?
You missed the point. I was using Fr. Feeney's erroneous method of private interpretation of Scripture, instead of the Catholic method of accepting what the Church teaches.
Read the Bread of Life thread and you'll see why Fr. Feeney denied the Catholic doctrine of BOD. He did so by relying on his private interpretation of Scripture, and convincing himself that by denying what all Catholics at the time believed, he was really remaining faithful to the explicit teaching of Christ. Read that thread and tell me how Feeney was any different than Luther.
-
You missed the point. I was using Fr. Feeney's erroneous method of private interpretation of Scripture, instead of the Catholic method of accepting what the Church teaches.
Read the Bread of Life thread and you'll see why Fr. Feeney denied the Catholic doctrine of BOD. He did so by relying on his private interpretation of Scripture, and convincing himself that by denying what all Catholics at the time believed, he was really remaining faithful to the explicit teaching of Christ. Read that thread and tell me how Feeney was any different than Luther.
You must have missed this......Now, my question to you and all BODers is; how is it that you all do not see the stark contradiction between defined dogma, Scripture, Divine Providence, and all of the other teachings from catechisms and the Fathers contrary to a BOD, and a BOD?
-
I was using Fr. Feeney's erroneous method of private interpretation of Scripture, instead of the Catholic method of accepting what the Church teaches. ...Read the Bread of Life thread and you'll see why Fr. Feeney denied the Catholic doctrine of BOD.
Trent is the only place where "The Church" mentions BOD. And it's not a doctrine, by the way.
Fr. Feeney said a person can be justified - receive the state of grace - without water baptism.
Yes, that is 1 way to interpret Trent.
Fr. Feeney himself interpreted the teaching that a person can be transferred into the state of righteousness "by the desire" for baptism, as meaning a person could enter into the state of grace without water baptism.
Do you disagree?
Fr. Feenye's novelty forced him to admit (in The Bread of Life) that he didn't know where a person would go if they died in the state of grace without being baptized.
Trent doesn't say a justified, non-baptized person is saved. No other council in history says so, neither do any dogmatic decrees. Only certain saints have speculated that either 1) they would be saved, 2) they would still have to go to purgatory, or 3) they would go to Limbo and not heaven. But, as far as doctrine goes, the answer is as Fr Feeney said: "We don't know. The Church has not taught this infallibly."
-
Trent doesn't say a justified, non-baptized person is saved. No other council in history says so, neither do any dogmatic decrees. Only certain saints have speculated that either 1) they would be saved, 2) they would still have to go to purgatory, or 3) they would go to Limbo and not heaven. But, as far as doctrine goes, the answer is as Fr Feeney said: "We don't know. The Church has not taught this infallibly."
The reason Trent didn't bother to say a non-baptized person in the state of grace can be saved is because no one questioned it. The Church teaches that those in the state of grace are "heirs of eternal life".
Council of Trent: "This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend [of God], that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace might not go to heaven. If anyone had ever taught such a thing, you can rest assured the Feeneyites would have found it by now and spread it far and wide.
And no saint has speculated that a soul who dies in the state of grace, after Christ opened the gates of heaven, will go to Limbo.
-
You must have missed this......Now, my question to you and all BODers is; how is it that you all do not see the stark contradiction between defined dogma, Scripture, Divine Providence, and all of the other teachings from catechisms and the Fathers contrary to a BOD, and a BOD?
Don't load me down, but give me a few quotes at a time and I'll reply.
-
In my 20 years of experience I have found that everyone that defends BOD, is really defending salvation by belief in a God the rewards, that is, that anyone in any religion can be saved. In all the debates on the internet during the last like 20 years, I only met one person that limited it to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas (and later St. Alphonsus Liguori, who was just following St. Thomas), the rest were just hiding behind St. Thomas, then they threw him under the boss to teach salvation for anyone even if they have no desire to be Catholic, no desire to be baptized, no belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity.
XavierSem, Praeter…. just the newest cowards hiding behind St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonus Ligouri, and the word "desire" from Trent.
-
Concerning “Bread of Life” by Fr. Leonard Feeney --
Pope John XXIII assigned Monsignor Francis Cassano (deceased) to review and examine Bread of Life by Father Leonard Feeney. He was to find any errors - nay, heresy. He reported there was nothing "contrary to faith" in Bread of Life. Msgr. Cassano eventually had a parish on the Hudson River and attested his conclusion to many people, including the Center itself. (This Monsignor was not a "nobody" - he had also been assigned by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello.)
We hear lots of calumnies from Rome (and others) about Fr. Feeney
-- but we never seem to hear of this report that found no flaw in “Bread of Life.”
"One of the most outstanding prophets of our time." - Hamish Fraser
"The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." — Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., (Jesuit Provincial)
"The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright
-
In my 20 years of experience I have found that everyone that defends BOD, is really defending salvation by belief in a God the rewards, ...
Same here ... with very few exceptions. And it's not worth our time fighting with those who believe in a BoD for catechumens.
-
1) Pius X did not write the catechism
2) The catechism was in Italian, what you are quoting is not in Italian, it is some kind of a translation, we do not know who tampered with it.
3) Throw it away and quote some other sources. If what you say is true, then there would be many real papal decrees, like there are for EENS, of which one would have to discard ALL of them to believe what you are teaching.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. 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”.
Since my last comments on this thread there were many interesting new posts and, for me, useful ones. I would like to discuss these later, this weekend, as soon as I find time. But one quick reply, to Last Tardhican and Praeter:
I found an original, Italian version of Pius X catechism that was used especially in Rome and not in all of Italy at the time (so I am told). Praeter's translation is not conform to the original.
Provide the link to the Italian. Here is a link (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/original-catechism-of-saint-pius-x-in-italian/)to an old Cathinfo thread, which includes a scanned copy of the page of the original Italian in which BOD is taught. Here is how the person who posted the Italian summed it up:
saintbosco13 (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/saintbosco13/): "Clearly we can now see firsthand that Pope Saint Pius X approved of the catechism, and clearly teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and on the soul of the Church. As has been discussed all along, here we have a Pope, and incorrupt Saint, teaching this doctrine, which is perfectly in line with all others in the Church who have taught it. The matter is now put to rest. More details and very clear copies of the actual pages can be found on baptismofdesire.com (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)."
That thread also contains a link to the letter in which Pius X approved the catechism.
-
XavierSem, Praeter…. just the newest cowards hiding behind St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonus Ligouri, and the word "desire" from Trent.
Xavier Sem and Praeter still believe what all the theologians taught before Vatican II. And I'm not hiding behind anyone. I haven't eve quoted St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus in this discussion.
Here's a few quotes from Pope Pius XII for you and the other BOD deniers to try and explain away:
Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)
Did you see that? An act of love? Any idea why he used that term, rather that baptism of desire?
Here's another teaching of Pius XII for you to resist:
Pius XII: “In the case of other sacraments, when the minister is, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forcoe even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water in his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.” (Allocution March 4, 1941)
Do you agree that "desire and love" suffices for a person to obtain the state of grace? If not, it isn't myself and Xavier Sem you disagreeing with, but the Vicar of Christ.
-
Do you believe this dogma, as it is written? "'We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
The dogma states explicitly that it is absolutely necessary to be subject to the Pope to be saved. No exceptions. If you believe the dogma, as it is written, you must conclude that it is impossible for a sedevacantist or anyone who dies during an interregnum to be saved. So, which is it: do you agree that every person who dies as a sedevacantist will go to hell (as I do), or do you deny the dogma?
I guess you are not saved then.
-
Quote from: Praeter (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=54265.msg687005#msg687005)
Xavier Sem and Praeter still believe what all the theologians taught before Vatican II. And I'm not hiding behind anyone. I haven't eve quoted St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus in this discussion.
Here's a few quotes from Pope Pius XII for you and the other BOD deniers to try and explain away:
Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)
Did you see that? An act of love? Any idea why he used that term, rather that baptism of desire?
Here's another teaching of Pius XII for you to resist:
Pius XII: “In the case of other sacraments, when the minister is, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forcoe even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water in his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.” (Allocution March 4, 1941)
Do you agree that "desire and love" suffices for a person to obtain the state of grace? If not, it isn't myself and Xavier Sem you disagreeing with, but the Vicar of Christ.
Well said. These people don't understand Catholic Doctrine. It is universally known that the OT Just obtained the Grace of Justification through Perfect Love of God, which Our Lord has called the First and Greatest of the Commandments, and which obtains the Grace of Contrition, as St. Alphonsus teaches. Our Lord said: Luk 10:25 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/10-25.htm) And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life? 26 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/10-26.htm)But he said to him: What is written in the law? How readest thou? 27 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/10-27.htm)He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/10-28.htm)And he said to him: Thou hast answered right. This do: and thou shalt live." God's Grace is never lacking to those who do all that lies in their power to love Him alone above all things, and therefore they obtain the Grace of Justice by an Act of Perfect Contrition even before Baptism, what Pope Pius XII calls An Act of Love and Desire. Our Lord also explained this to St. Catherine saying He poured forth Blood and Water from His Most Sacred Heart, in order to show the Baptism of Love, that all can obtain who love Him above all things. We observe St. Mary Magdalene in the Gospel had her sins forgiven by love and contrition, because she knelt at the feet of Jesus, worshipped and adored Him, and loved Him above all things with sorrow for her past sins. King David had also obtained this grace of contrition through perfect love in the Old, and so did St. Peter, St. Dismas, Cornelius etc.
St. Luk 7:47 "Wherefore, I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. 48And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee."
Rather than argue with Catholic Theologians, Dimondite heretics must confess the mortal sin of denying the Dogma of BOD, to be reconciled with the Church. St. Alphonsus teaches, “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” We see countless other citations at: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
-
I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace might not go to heaven.
.
I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace, but unbaptized, might go to heaven.
.
Even St Thomas was not clear. He said they would still have to go to purgatory due to the stain of original sin and temporal punishment not forgiven. I say they would go to Limbo, as they would be unbaptized, but justified in the eyes of God, just like infants. Or as Fr Feeney said, we don't know. The Church has not told us. There are a variety of valid opinions one can hold.
-
Don't load me down, but give me a few quotes at a time and I'll reply.
Here are only three of many:
1) Dogma:
Trent Session 7 / Decree on the Sacraments:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
2) Scripture:
Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
3) All Catechisms:
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
-
I can play that game too...
Saint Gregory of nαzιanzen teaches:
Saint Gregory says "you are speaking in riddles"...
St. Gregory was speaking of one who culpably neglects Baptism. Not at all comparable to a catechumen like Valentian, whom St. Ambrose and St. Thomas say were saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine said Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes. Thus, he who has desired Baptism before his death with contrition and charity will be saved.
New Advent: "http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm)
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire."
-
Pope St. Pius X: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Catholic Encyclopedia: The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
· I St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."
Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily I: "But why does Christ say, "Ye shall be baptized," when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided."
· II. St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."
And note what St. Cyprian calls Dimondites, Aiders and Favorers of Heretics: St. Cyprian, Church Father (3rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".
-
Consider this one also: Are you bound to confess all your sins in number and kind by divine law in order to be forgiven? Yes.
But suppose you happen to be invincibly ignorant of a former sin, can you still be forgiven? If God applied your rigorist ways, then no.
But, because God is Merciful to those who show Mercy, and Loves those who love and desire the salvation of all, those who are sincerely contrite for all their sins - which universal contrition implicitly includes every former sin, even forgotten sins - can receive the remission of them all.
Actually I was taught by an FSSPX priest that, no, God does not automatically forgive the sins that a sinner may have forgotten to accuse himself of, sic et simpliciter.
God will forgive sins that a sinner may have forgotten only if:
1. the sinner makes an honest and intentional contrition for the sins that he may be forgetting, and
2. the priest explicitly forgives those sins that the sinner may have forgotten.
Compared to other members of this community I am "doctrine ignorant" but if the previous doctrine concerning the sacrament of confession (and absolution) is correct, then it would stand to logic to assume that also the sacrament of baptism (and salvation) cannot be implicit but must be - at least - specifically and intentionally desired.
-
I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace, but unbaptized, might go to heaven.
Here's five:
POPE INNOCENT III: You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:Denzinger 413).
Pope Innocent III (12th Century): "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland." (Denzinger 388)
Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity..."
St. Thomas Aquinas: " I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' " Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
-
Actually I was taught by an FSSPX priest that, no, God does not automatically forgive the sins that a sinner may have forgotten to accuse himself of, sic et simpliciter.
God will forgive sins that a sinner may have forgotten only if:
1. the sinner makes an honest and intentional contrition for the sins that he may be forgetting, and
2. the priest explicitly forgives those sins that the sinner may have forgotten.
Compared to other members of this community I am "doctrine ignorant" but if the previous doctrine concerning the sacrament of confession (and absolution) is correct, then it would stand to logic to assume that also the sacrament of baptism (and salvation) cannot be implicit but must be - at least - specifically and intentionally desired.
#1 is a given, but #2 is not necessary. Even #1 doesn't have to be explicit, however, since it's hard to have explicit contrition for something you don't know about. So #1 can be implicit. Now, the obligation remains to confess the sin if it later comes to mind, but the soul is already in a state of justification. With any Sacrament, there's matter and form, and a merely material omission of a sin due to forgetfulness does not compromise the formal integrity of the Sacrament, any more than a purely material heresy excludes someone from the Church.
-
Here's five:
POPE INNOCENT III: You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:Denzinger 413).
In another letter of similar authority, this same Pope taught that transubstantiation takes place so long as the priest merely thinks the words of consecrations. St. Thomas Aquinas later rightly took him to task for this error.
Also, you'll notice that this teaching of Innocent also condemns the position of St. Alphonsus that in cases of BoD the temporal punishment due to sin remains by declaring that such a one would IMMEDIATELY rush off to heaven without delay.
Of course, assuming the existence of a BoD, Innocent III would be correct, and St. Alphonsus in error. Initial justification is defined by Trent as a rebirth to such an extent that no vestige of sin remains ... so that it is impossible for there to be an initial justification that is not at the same time a complete rebirth which entails the remission of all sin and all punishment due to sin.
This further highlights the contradictions among those who believe in BoD. You get a different explanation of BoD for pretty much everyone who holds it. Here Innocent is claiming that it is a Baptism of Faith, a BoF, rather than a BoD.
You don't need any more proof that the Church has never defined BoD. When the Church defines something, she clearly teaches WHAT it is that must be believed about that something. How can you have a definition without any definition of terms? Only thing that all BoDers seem to agree on is that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation ... which of course is heresy. Very few BoDers can articulate how the Sacrament of Baptism remains necessary for salvation, as per Catholic dogma, in the case of BoD. Now, I could come up with an explanation if I believed in BoD, but 99% of them can't.
Finally, here is YET ANOTHER CASE where an understanding of BoD clearly entails EXPLICIT faith ... such as this priest had. Church Fathers who, the one or two who arguably believed in it for a time, all limited it to catechumens. 1917 Code of Canon Law speaks only of catechumens. St. Robert Bellarmine asked, "whether a catechumens who ... could be saved." This Jesuit innovation of extending BoD to those who have no faith in Baptism (as did this "priest") and no DESIRE to receive it ... is nothing short of a heretical denial of both EENS and of Tridentine Ecclesiology.
-
Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)
Ah, yes, Pius XII, in the same allocution in which he opened the floodgates to Catholic birth control. Pius XII, who sponsored the first ecuмenical gatherings, who appointed Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, who opened the floodgates to evolution, and who appointed nearly every bishop who would give us the wonders of Vatican II. No thanks.
Why should you care, anyway? You don't hold that even an Ecuмenical Council, with the Pope and all the bishops of the world teaching the Universal Church, would be preserved from error, now maintain that an Allocution (speech) to a bunch of midwives is somehow guaranteed to be free from error?
-
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity..."
Hugh of St. Victor was in a dispute with Abelard regarding BoD, so he wrote St. Bernard here. Of course you leave out the part where he says ...
So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them
This is a very tentative siding in favor of BoD because he falsely believed that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose believed in BoD. At that time, there was no wide availability of St. Augstine's works for them to know that St. Augustine vehemently reject his youthful speculation regarding BoD in his later days after battling the Pelagians and the Donatists. Some of the strongest statements in existence against BoD come from St. Augustine. St. Ambrose's oration is ambiguous at best; in another work, he explicitly rejected BoD.
So here we have St. Bernard tentatively siding with his mistaken notion that Augustine and Ambrose taught this. Reverence for St. Augustine was so great at this time that the Church found the need to condemn the proposition that the opinion of St. Augustine could be held no matter what the Church taught. After St. Bernard responded thusly, Hugh of St. Victor took up the position. He in turn influenced the proto-scholastic Peter Lombard. From there the opinion made it to St. Thomas. And then it went viral, as it were. But there's no Apostolic Tradition whatsoever to back up this piece of speculative theology.
On a side note, the aforementioned Abelard was also the first to reject St. Augustine's teaching that infants who die unbaptized suffer in hell, and the Church sided with him and made the doctrine of Limbo here own. Until Abelard, this position was universally held by theologians ... for about 700 years.
I've gone through this dozens of times already, the entire history of BoD, where it comes from, what it's authority is, etc.
-
Well said. These people don't understand Catholic Doctrine. It is universally known that the OT Just obtained the Grace of Justification through Perfect Love of God, ...
So you start by claiming that WE do not understand Catholic doctrine and then immediately bumble your way into claiming that the OT just were saved in the same manner as BoD works. Too bad for you that every single Church Father made a sharp distinction between how salvation worked in the OT and how it worked in the new economy after the establishment of the Sacraments and founding of the Church. Then you proceed to confound Baptism of Blood with Baptism of Desire. You're a theological hot mess and then have the audacity to lecture others that THEY do not understand Catholic doctrine. You bumble from one error to another on pretty much every other theological topic that you engage in.
-
Here are only three of many:
1) Dogma:
Trent Session 7 / Decree on the Sacraments:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Baptism is necessary for salvation with the twofold necessity of means and precept. Here’s how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains the two:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is grounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.
The salvific effect of baptism is the infusion of grace into the soul. This effect can be had, as the article says, by “an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.” I would add to that an act of supernatural faith. This is the theology of baptism as it was taught prior to Vatican II, and you can read more about it in any pre-Vatican II theological manual. You can also read about it in the 1949 Holy Office letter that condemned the errors of the Feeneyites.
Stubborn:
2) Scripture: Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
There is only one baptism. BOD and BOB are referred to as baptism because they can produce the necessary salvific effect of baptism without receiving the water.
Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) – 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."
You can read more about that in any pre-Vatican II theological manual.
Stubborn:
3) All Catechisms:
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
All Catechisms:
Catechism of Pius X:
Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Douay Catechism, 17 the century:
Question: Can a man be saved without baptism?
Answer: He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
The Baltimore Catechism
Question: How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Answer: Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or of desire.
-
Here's five:
Ok, but as Ladislaus points out, all those 5 quotes are personal opinion, and the reasons behind such opinions are debatable. You chastise Fr Feeney for going against doctrine, but 5 quotes you provided are not doctrine. So I can chastise them to the degree that you do so to Fr Feeney. Basically, it's opinion vs opinion.
.
Those who say that BOD is "doctrine" quote Trent, but since Trent only mentions it in passing, you have to rely on opinion to "fill in the gaps" for it to make sense. That's not how doctrine works. If it's not been clearly defined by the Church, then it's not doctrine, it's only opinion....which is fallible.
-
XavierSem, for the 4th time, how does an invincibly ignorant person desire baptism (which desire Trent requires) if he does not know baptism exists?
.
Please respond in your own words, not some lengthy quotes, as you are the self-proclaimed expert here, and I am a lowly heretic.
-
Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Praeter, the above is nothing more than a watered-down version of St Thomas' opinion. If people want to argue the above, I can accept such a liberal view (I don't accept the view, but I accept the historical reasons why it exists and why people would believe it). But just because it's in the catechism doesn't mean it's doctrine.
.
The problem is that you, and many others, want to apply the above to the invincibly ignorant or (worse) to those pagans or heretics in other religions. The above says that an IMPLICIT desire is necessary. IMPLICIT desire means an assumed desire, based on outward actions which support the desire.
.
As an example - a person walks into a restaurant and asks for a table. They have not EXPLICITLY ordered food to eat, but the desire is IMPLICIT since they are at a restaurant and waiting to order.
.
As an example - a person is taking catechism classes at a catholic church, or has been going to sunday mass at a catholic church for months in a row. Even though they have not EXPLICITLY said they desire to be baptized (in an open, public way), their actions are such than one can assume they have this desire.
.
IMPLICIT does NOT mean indirect, subtle, abstract, or hidden. IMPLICIT means it's assumed based on actions. (Only God knows if the desire is truly there), but you cannot have an IMPLICIT desire unless ACTIONS are taken so that an OUTSIDE party would assume such.
.
IMPLICIT desire of baptism is NOT part of being sorry for one's sins, nor in making an act of love of God (which is similar to being sorry for one's sins). Any human being can be sorry for their sins - this is part of the natural law. As Trent says, one cannot have the desire for baptism unless the Holy Ghost inspires it. One cannot have an IMPLICIT desire without ACTIONS taken towards joining the Church. An act of love of God or an act of contrition are not strictly catholic actions, so such do not fulfill an IMPLICIT desire for baptism.
.
Trent lays out the requirements for preparing for Baptism. If one does not fulfill these, they have not the proper desire for BOD, either EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY. If you want to follow what Trent says about BOD, then follow ALL of what it says. You can't add parts of Trent, plus quotes from other saints, to create doctrine. That's heresy.
-
So, Praeter or XavierSem, explain in your own words how Baptism remains necessary for salvation even in the case of a hypothetical Baptism of Desire. Trent could not have been more emphatic that Baptism is necessary for salvation. This explanation is in fact the reason why a Thomistic view of BoD is not in fact heretical ... as the Dimonds claim. I, who do not believe in Baptism of Desire, have articulated this several times, whereas 99% of BoDers effectively deny the dogma that Baptism is necessary for salvation (in their false non-Thomistic version of BoD).
Unfortuately, this very poor articulation of BoD has led to Pelagianism, whereby souls are saved ex opere operantis. If you're going to believe in BoD, then at least get this right.
-
Ok, but as Ladislaus points out, all those 5 quotes are personal opinion, and the reasons behind such opinions are debatable.
Pax, you asked for one quote to support what I said. I gave you three quotes from Popes, one from the Universal Doctor of the Church, and threw in a fifth from another Saint.
You chastise Fr Feeney for going against doctrine, but 5 quotes you provided are not doctrine. So I can chastise them to the degree that you do so to Fr Feeney. Basically, it's opinion vs opinion.
The opinion of three popes and the universal doctor of the Church, vs. one from Fr. Feeney, whose position was condemned by the Church in the 1949 letter from the Holy Office. There is no equivalent between the two. And I could have provided a dozen more quotes that support what the Popes said.
The fact that there is minor difference concerning BOD, such as whether it removes all actual sin or not, is beside the point, since they all taught BOD.
Those who say that BOD is "doctrine" quote Trent, but since Trent only mentions it in passing, you have to rely on opinion to "fill in the gaps" for it to make sense. That's not how doctrine works. If it's not been clearly defined by the Church, then it's not doctrine, it's only opinion....which is fallible.
Do you realize that you're doing the same thing the Liberals and Modernists of the 19th century did?
You are departing from what everyone prior to Vatican II taught simply because the teaching you don't like was never infallibly defined. Are you a Traditional Catholic or a successor of the 19th century Modernists? If you are a traditional Catholic then act like one by accepting what was taught before Vatican II. Fr. Feeney was no different than Luther. He used his private interpretation of the Bible as the basis for rejecting the traditional teaching of the Church - going back to the earliest centuries.
-
IMPLICIT does NOT mean indirect, subtle, abstract, or hidden. IMPLICIT means it's assumed based on actions. (Only God knows if the desire is truly there), but you cannot have an IMPLICIT desire unless ACTIONS are taken so that an OUTSIDE party would assume such.
Right, anything else completely destroys the definition of the Church as a visible society ... taught emphatically by Trent. This is why St. Robert Bellarmine, writing shortly after Trent, limited BoD to catechumens.
Even the Modernist Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admitted this:
. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.
Most people don't know that Rahner was attacked by the even-more-heretical Modernists of his age for his "Anonymous Christianity," in that he insisted that even in this Anonymous justification, Christ had to remain some hidden, invisible instrumental cause of justification. Now, those like Archbishop Lefebvre and others who state that people are saved BY the Church (rather than IN the Church) tragically hold this very same opinion, that the Church's role is that of mere instrumental cause acting invisibly. This leads to an undermining of the Church as visible society, and this is in fact Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell. ALL of the Vatican II errors derive from this ecclesiology. So it's ironic that so many Traditional Catholics claim to reject Vatican II.
-
The opinion of three popes and the universal doctor of the Church, vs. one from Fr. Feeney, ...
Read the quote from Rahner. Most of the Church Fathers explicitly rejected BoD. Of those who accepted it, they considered it limited to the catechumen. So did St. Robert Bellarmine. That was because they considered the catechumen already an imperfect member of the Church through their profession of faith. In other words, they had one of the criteria required for membership in the Church, though not all.
This notion of BoD extending to those other than catechumens or those who profess the Catholic faith is nothing but Pelagian heresy. You continue to hide behind Baptism of Desire to promote Pelagianism, whereas a PROPER understanding of BoD doesn't labor under that difficulty.
But none of you actually care about the rare case of a catechumen who happened to drop dead the day before his Baptism was scheduled. Your interest is in undermining EENS so that all manner of infidel, heretic, and schismatic can be saved (which is a denial of Church dogma that these CANNOT be saved).
-
The fact that there is minor difference concerning BOD, such as whether it removes all actual sin or not, is beside the point, since they all taught BOD.
I meant to say whether it removes all the punishment due to actual sins...
-
I meant to say whether it removes all the punishment due to actual sins...
No, this is big in terms of understanding what BoD is and how it works. Some claim that it works "quasi-" ex opere operato (whatever that means), other that it's basically Pelagianism at work. Church has NOT defined what this means. All you BoDers agree on is that it renders Baptism unnecessary for salvation (which is in fact heretical).
-
Read the quote from Rahner. Most of the Church Fathers explicitly rejected BoD. Of those who accepted it, they considered it limited to the catechumen. So did St. Robert Bellarmine. That was because they considered the catechumen already an imperfect member of the Church through their profession of faith. In other words, they had one of the criteria required for membership in the Church, though not all.
This notion of BoD extending to those other than catechumens or those who profess the Catholic faith is nothing but Pelagian heresy. You continue to hide behind Baptism of Desire to promote Pelagianism, whereas a PROPER understanding of BoD doesn't labor under that difficulty.
But none of you actually care about the rare case of a catechumen who happened to drop dead the day before his Baptism was scheduled. Your interest is in undermining EENS so that all manner of infidel, heretic, and schismatic can be saved (which is a denial of Church dogma that these CANNOT be saved).
This is without a doubt true. Saints, doctors, and Popes only acknowledged Baptism of Blood. "Baptism of Desire" was only acknowledged in the case of a Catechumen.
The most explicit statement I've seen on this is by St. Fulgentius who says: "Hold most firmly and never doubt that, not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, which is given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their own actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of Original Sin."
-
Again, most of us don't care about BoD per se. It's the BoDers who keep making it about BoD ... since they can dig up some quotes in support of BoD.
What's the actual issue is whether anyone other than catechumens can be saved by this means.
For that opinion there is ZERO support in Catholic doctrine. So in that belief, it is YOU who reject Church teaching by contradicting the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church. But you falsely try to create the impression that they agree with you on this point simply because they believe in a BoD. It's a completely dishonest argument ... but it's all you've got.
-
Furthermore St. Fulgentius says: "No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).
-
Right, anything else completely destroys the definition of the Church as a visible society ... taught emphatically by Trent. This is why St. Robert Bellarmine, writing shortly after Trent, limited BoD to catechumens.
Even the Modernist Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admitted this:
Most people don't know that Rahner was attacked by the even-more-heretical Modernists of his age for his "Anonymous Christianity," in that he insisted that even in this Anonymous justification, Christ had to remain some hidden, invisible instrumental cause of justification. Now, those like Archbishop Lefebvre and others who state that people are saved BY the Church (rather than IN the Church) tragically hold this very same opinion, that the Church's role is that of mere instrumental cause acting invisibly. This leads to an undermining of the Church as visible society, and this is in fact Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell. ALL of the Vatican II errors derive from this ecclesiology. So it's ironic that so many Traditional Catholics claim to reject Vatican II.
Where does that Karl Rahner quote come from?
-
The opinion of three popes and the universal doctor of the Church, vs. one from Fr. Feeney
Fr Feeney is not the only one who argued against BOD. St Gregory was already posted on this thread.
.
You are departing from what everyone prior to Vatican II taught simply because the teaching you don't like was never infallibly defined.
I'm making the point that Trent defined a specific area, with strict requirements, where BOD is ok. All previous opinions to Trent are ignored, unless they line up with Trent. All opinions after Trent are anathema, if they are liberalized. Once a council has spoken, we must abide by what it says. Councils > papal opinions. Councils > Saints opinions.
.
You can't mix and match opinions to explain Trent the way you want. That's backwards. You must cast aside ALL opinions contrary to Trent.
-
Fr Feeney is not the only one who argued against BOD. I'm making the point that Trent defined a specific area, with strict requirements, where BOD is ok. All previous opinions to Trent are ignored, unless they line up with Trent. Once a council has spoken, we must abide by what it says. Councils > papal opinions. Councils > Saints opinions. Once a council has spoken, we must abide by what it says. Councils > papal opinions. Councils > Saints opinions.
You are privately interpreting Trent and concluding that all the Popes, catechisms and approved theological manuals that differ with your private interpretation are disagreeing with Trent. They are not. They are disagreeing with your false interpretation of Trent.
This conversation is a wast of time. What is evident is that the baptism of desire deniers are no different than Protestants. They rely on their private judgment and reject what every Catholic (with the exception of the few Feeneyites) believed before before Vatican II.
-
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Baptism is necessary for salvation with the twofold necessity of means and precept. Here’s how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains the two:
The salvific effect of baptism is the infusion of grace into the soul. This effect can be had, as the article says, by “an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.” I would add to that an act of supernatural faith. This is the theology of baptism as it was taught prior to Vatican II, and you can read more about it in any pre-Vatican II theological manual. You can also read about it in the 1949 Holy Office letter that condemned the errors of the Feeneyites.
Trent decrees that if you say the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation, then you are anathema. Being Trent's Canon is defined dogma, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe this, yet, regardless of your source, you are saying exactly what Trent condemns while using a fallible source which seemingly obviously teaches contrary to Trent.
I am asking sincerely here, do you realize this is contrary to Trent's canon? If not, using only Trent's canon, what do you understand the canon to mean?
I did answer your other points, but this post got so long that I deleted the rest of this post, but we can revisit later if needed.
-
Furthermore St. Fulgentius says: "No one can, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal." (The Rule of Faith 43).
Baptism of Blood in some of those Church Fathers is a bit interesting also. St. Cyprian, one of the first to mention it, states that those who undergo Baptism of Blood actually receive the SACRAMENT of Baptism. Now, later authors just assume that this was written in error. But if you look at another passage from him about BoB, he states that the blood replaces the water while the angels say the words (of Baptism). In other words, his conception was in fact that this was an alternate means of receiving the Sacrament, with an alternate matter (blood) and form (spoken by angels). So for him BoB WAS the Sacrament of Baptism. He did not view this as some kind of magical "exception".
Most BoDers cite BoB as proof of BoD, but there are quite a few examples of Church Fathers who believed in BoB but explicitly rejected BoD. So the one does NOT in fact prove the other. They try to implicitly argue, "see, see, an exception" which they imply proves that there are OTHER "exceptions" as well. But St. Cyprian does not consider BoB to be any exception.
-
Baptism of Blood in some of those Church Fathers is a bit interesting also. St. Cyprian, one of the first to mention it, states that those who undergo Baptism of Blood actually receive the SACRAMENT of Baptism. Now, later authors just assume that this was written in error. But if you look at another passage from him about BoB, he states that the blood replaces the water while the angels say the words (of Baptism). In other words, his conception was in fact that this was an alternate means of receiving the Sacrament, with an alternate matter (blood) and form (spoken by angels). So for him BoB WAS the Sacrament of Baptism. He did not view this as some kind of magical "exception".
Most BoDers cite BoB as proof of BoD, but there are quite a few examples of Church Fathers who believed in BoB but explicitly rejected BoD. So the one does NOT in fact prove the other. They try to implicitly argue, "see, see, an exception" which they imply proves that there are OTHER "exceptions" as well. But St. Cyprian does not consider BoB to be any exception.
Well said.
-
all the Popes, catechisms and approved theological manuals that differ with your private interpretation are disagreeing with Trent.
Doctrinal Council > papal opinions > fallible catechisms > theological manuals. Truth doesn't change. As History shows, it's often watered down over time, especially when it's a hard truth.
.
It wasn't until the 1800s, when Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ had started to infiltrate the Church, and also due to the heresies of Americanism, that BOD, in the manner in which it is liberally "understood" (which is an oxymoron, since there is no universal explanation for it) became "widespread".
.
Trent is not rocket science to understand. Even St Alphonsus agrees with Trent (mostly) and he lived right after the council. When the 1800s began, and Modernism started taking root across the globe, then even St Alphonsus looks like a "conservative extremeist".
.
Heck, even your explanations of BOD are FAR more liberal than St Thomas and St Alphonsus. And you argue that there is a "consensus" on the subject since Trent. :facepalm: That's hilarious. You and XavierSem don't even agree. :jester:
.
-
Trent decrees that if you say the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation, then you are anathema. Being Trent's Canon is defined dogma, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe this, yet, regardless of your source, you are saying exactly what Trent condemns while using a fallible source which seemingly obviously teaches contrary to Trent.
I am asking sincerely here, do you realize this is contrary to Trent's canon? If not, using only Trent's canon, what do you understand the canon to mean?
I did answer your other points, but this post got so long that I deleted the rest of this post, but we can revisit later if needed.
The canon you quoted said baptism, not the sacrament of baptism.
In the prior section on "The Sacraments in General," it qualifies the statement, by added “or the desire thereof”. Here it the canon:
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.
If you interpret that canon as meaning a person can be justified and saved by baptism of desire, your private interpretation will be in agreement with all the catechisms and theologians who addressed it after the council. If you privately interpret the canon differently, you are no different than a Protestant.
I am asking sincerely here, do you realize this is contrary to Trent's canon? If not, using only Trent's canon, what do you understand the canon to mean?
I understand the canons from Trent concerning baptism/baptism of desire to mean exactly what the following three catechisms teach:
Catechism of Pius X:
Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Douay Catechism, 17 the century:
Question: Can a man be saved without baptism?
Answer: He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
The Baltimore Catechism
Question: How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Answer: Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or of desire.
If your private interpretation of the canons of Trent on baptism differs from what these three catechisms teach, please provide a quotation from any Pope or approved theologian after Trent that explicitly disagrees with what they teach. And by explicitly disagrees, I mean one who teaches that a person cannot be justified and saved by baptism of desire or blood, which produce the salvific effect of baptism without the water.
-
Doctrinal Council > papal opinions > fallible catechisms > theological manuals. Truth doesn't change.
Pax, do you believe your private interpretation of Trent is infallible? If so, when did you receive the charism and how can the rest of us get it?
If not, why would you favor your own private interpretation over that of the Popes, the "fallible catechisms" that the Church has approved, and the theological manuals that the Church not only approved, but used to train priests in seminary before Vatican II?
Do you have a Ph.D in theology? Do you have any formal theological training? I can guarantee that the answer to both questions is a resounding no. In that case, how can you possibly reject what the pre-Vatican II popes, catechisms and theologians all taught?
It is amazing to watch prideful laymen fall into the identical error of the Protestant heretics. But it shouldn't be a surprise, since human nature doesn't change.
-
Praeter,
I've already said that I don't have a problem with the (imo, liberal) interpretation of the Piux X catechism...even though it's not infallible. What I have a problem with, and what is heretical, is the APPLICATION of BOD to those who do not have a desire for the sacrament. Trent SPECIFICALLY outlines who BOD applies to; most all theologians since the 1800s have slowly expanded Trent's guidelines, as does XavierSem when he says that a "sincere" Hindu can receive BOD even when he has no idea what baptism or the Church is.
.
Do you see what I'm saying?
-
This conversation is a wast of time. What is evident is that the baptism of desire deniers are no different than Protestants. They rely on their private judgment and reject what every Catholic (with the exception of the few Feeneyites) believed before before Vatican II.
Dear Praeter,
I don't have the time to read through this thread, just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen? Or are you just one of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity)?
-
I don't understand why people bring up the Baltimore Catechism, because most people who believe in BOD do not believe in it the way it is taught in the Baltimore Catechism. (at least the version I have)
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
ar·dent means enthusiastic or passionate.
That makes sense to me and that is what I believe. If someone desires Baptism with all their heart (and ALSO wish to do all that God has ordained for salvation such as avoiding sin) and they die before they are Baptized but wish they were, then they can be Baptized by God himself or by the angels. But that is not what most people believe. They believe people in any religion who have no desire at all (or wish), let alone an "ardent" one to be Baptized can have BOD. So they reject the Baltimore Catechism just as the Feeneyites do. And "ardent" is not the same as "implicit". So I think people should stop using the Baltimore Catechism as their BOD proving source since they also reject its teaching.
-
The canon you quoted said baptism, not the sacrament of baptism.
The canon is in the Seventh Session, titled: "Decree on The Sacraments", therefore, the canon is strictly about the sacrament of baptism, not the rubrics surrounding the ceremony or anything else.
In the prior section on "The Sacraments in General," it qualifies the statement, by added “or the desire thereof”. Here it the canon:
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.
If you interpret that canon as meaning a person can be justified and saved by baptism of desire, your private interpretation will be in agreement with all the catechisms and theologians who addressed it after the council. If you privately interpret the canon differently, you are no different than a Protestant.
May we do a careful, comprehensive reading of this canon by splitting it into two parts?
First, note that like Trent's first quote above, the subject matter of the canon is about the sacrament(s), not a desire for them:
PART 1) CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;...[let him be anathema].
This first half of the canon alone should be all anyone needs to see that a BOD, which is not a sacrament, contradicts Trent.
Note that Part 1 condemns those who saith that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation. This means we must believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. Certainly you cannot disagree here.
I assume you will agree that a BOD is not a sacrament, yet by saying a BOD is salvific, you are saying a) the sacrament is not necessary for salvation and b) by saying a BOD is salvific, what you are saying is that the sacrament is superfluous. Trent condemns both, a and b.
PART 2) ...and [If any one saith] 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.
Part 2 says that if you saith that without the sacrament, or without the desire thereof, that men do in fact obtain justification (not salvation), through faith alone, then you are anathema.
What Trent is talking about is the sacraments.
Trent says the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. (part 1)
Trent says without them or the desire for them, men do not obtain justification.
Even receiving the sacrament is no guarantee of salvation, it only guarantees justification whilst we live, at least until that justification is lost through mortal sin.
To summarize, Part 1 is talking about salvation and tells us that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. Before we can receive any of the other sacraments, we must receive the sacrament of baptism, making that sacrament the most necessary of all the sacraments.
Part 2 is talking about justification and tells us we cannot be justified without the sacraments or the desire thereof. Trent is also saying that through faith alone, no one is justified, which, without the sacrament, is what "the desire thereof" is.
-
That makes sense to me and that is what I believe. If someone desires Baptism with all their heart (and ALSO wish to do all that God has ordained for salvation such as avoiding sin) and they die before they are Baptized but wish they were, then they can be Baptized by God himself or by the angels. But that is not what most people believe. They believe people in any religion who have no desire at all (or wish), let alone an "ardent" one to be Baptized can have BOD. So they reject the Baltimore Catechism just as the Feeneyites do. And "ardent" is not the same as "implicit". So I think people should stop using the Baltimore Catechism as their BOD proving source since they also reject its teaching.
THIS ^^^ ... there's actually no desire at all in their notion of BoD.
I have zero objection to this belief in BoD enunciated by Matto above. There's nothing inherently inimical to Catholic EENS dogma nor to Catholic ecclesiology here. I won't spend 5 minutes arguing with you over what then becomes a mere academic disagreement on a point of speculative theology. Arvinger was another one that I had no problem with. It's not worth my time.
What's at issue is those who use a false distorted notion of BoD to undermine EENS dogma, where the Church EXPLICITLY teaches that infidels, heretics, and schismatics cannot be saved. Now, it's disputed whether all catechumens necessarily qualify as infidels. In one sense they are, but in another not. That is the crux of the debate over whether catechumens can be saved via BoD, and it's speculative. It's also speculative because even if you believe that it's hypothetically possible, there's no proof that anyone has ever actually been saved in this manner. My firm conviction is that God would not allow any of His elect catechumens to die before receiving Baptism.
-
Before we waste any more of our time, Praeter and XavierSem need to answer this question:
Can infidels (e.g. Jews or Muslims) or heretics (e.g. Protestants) or schismatics (e.g. Orthodox) be saved?
ANSWER WITH A SIMPLE YES OR NO. No prevarication or equivocation.
-
Please respond in your own words, not some lengthy quotes, as you are the self-proclaimed expert here, and I am a lowly heretic.
Pax, I didn't mean to suggest that. And I thought I was helping by providing reading material from that much-loved Book on Perfect Contrition, which contains much edifying material, and which many Saints have said they would love to preach Sermons on, for it is one of the Greatest and Highest Commandments of God, which Our Lord calls the First and Greatest of all Commandments, to love God with all our hearts, with all our minds, with all our strength; for the Grace of God is never lacking to those who do.
Now, I don't think you're "a lowly heretic". But here's a simple answer, in my own words first, and then proved by the authority of a Doctor, and then from the Magisterium, a Holy Office Letter Msgr. Fenton commented on positively. When someone universally wishes to fulfill the will of God in every respect, as when he wishes to love God above all things and keep all His commands, implicit in that universal act of love or universal contrition, is the desire to fulfill each and every specific command of God, which therefore immeditely justifies, just as AN ACT OF CONTRITION does for us
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church: "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
And in the Holy Office Letter: ""In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
-
If St Alphonsus truly wrote that "as is", with no out-of-context sentences put together, then he would've had no problem with V2.
-
If St Alphonsus truly wrote that "as is", with no out-of-context sentences put together, then he would've had no problem with V2.
And Archbishop Lefebvre and the Baltimore Catechism have also taught this Catholic Church Doctrine most plainly.
Archbishop Lefebvre: "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."
· Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
I think it is the misunderstanding or unawareness of this one single doctrine that more than anything else - as even Ladislaus has said is the case in the past, making a good case for it imo - keeps souls away from desiring to be good traditional Roman Catholics in full Communion with the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. I accept the Authoritative Teaching on this matter of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can even agree with St. Benedict's Catholic Centre on it.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Mission - a requirement of the Church's catholicity
849 The missionary mandate. "Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men":339 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."340 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846)
-
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church: "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
ASSUMING THAT this quotation is real, not taken out of context, and not mistranslated --
With all due respect to St. Alphonsus, this statement is on its face heretical. Infidels cannot be saved. Supernatural faith is an absolute requirement for justification. Perfect supernatural love of God is not possible without supernatural faith.
Trent taught this quite clearly:
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified
No man has ever been justified without faith. Dogma.
Infidel quite literally means "one without faith"
Even Doctors of the Church are capable of pronouncing material heresy.
Now, in his defense, he's probably using the term loosely as someone who does not believe EXPLICITLY in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. But, in that case, he explicitly disagreed with that position in another place, since he did hold as his position that such explicit faith was in fact necessary for salvation. So at the very least he's contradicting himself.
-
Dear Praeter and XavierSem,
I don't have the time to read through this thread, just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen? Or are you just one of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity)?
-
False BOders like XavierSem only use St. Alphonsis Ligour to teach their false version of implicit desire, which he never taught. Then they throw him under the bus, to teach salvation by implicit faith:
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
-
Dear Praeter and XavierSem,
I don't have the time to read through this thread, just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen? Or are you just one of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity)?
I asked them this already on this thread. That's because we all know the answer. Their interest in BoD has nothing to do with the rare case of a departed catechumen.
-
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: ...
Yes, either he was contradicting himself in that prior quotation, or else it's fabricated, taken out of context, or mistranslated by some heretic with an agenda.
-
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.” (http://file:///C:/Users/Owner/Docuмents/Religion%20&%20Politics/Religion/Implicit%20faith/St%20Alphonsus%20rejected%20invincible%20ignorance%20&%20Implicit%20faith%20UPDATED%20by%20MHFM%208-2009.doc#_edn1)[iv][259]
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”[ii] (http://file:///C:/Users/Owner/Docuмents/Religion%20&%20Politics/Religion/Implicit%20faith/St%20Alphonsus%20rejected%20invincible%20ignorance%20&%20Implicit%20faith%20UPDATED%20by%20MHFM%208-2009.doc#_edn2)[v][260]
-
There is no contradiction. By an Act of Contrition, a person may obtain justification and enter the State of Grace, as St. Alphonsus clearly says, and therefore enter the Church. But if he perseveres in the state of Grace, He will be enlightened by God in due time, before he receives the grace of final perseverance, at least in the hour of death, about Our Lord Jesus Christ, and will therefore die with explicit faith in Him and be saved as as Christian; of which we have examples, such as Fr. Hermann Cohen's mother. Thus, the two apparent discrepancies are reconciled perfectly, and St. Alphonsus doesn't contradict yourself. Does that answer your question on St. Alphonsus, Ladislaus. As to your other question, was there no supernatural faith in the Old Testament? Then all of them are lost, and there is no difference between the just and the unjust. No, there was both supernatural faith and supernatural contrition, because there was belief in all that God had revealed, and desire to do all that He wills, which is contained in basic Acts of Faith and Contrition in God. It is true that after Christ perhaps released some drops of Blood of His Completed Sacrifice on them, only then they went to the Beatific Vision. Some early Church texts I researched recently even suggest He Baptized them, Lad, but it is clear they were just.
And you too, Last Tradhican, or are you just interested in polemics against me? Do you know St. Thomas and Thomistic Theologians like Fr. Garrigou Lagrange teach that every child who comes to the Age of Reason is given the opportunity to Receive the Remission of Original Sin by a Loving God, by making an Act of Contrition to Him? No, obviously, you don't know it, for otherwise you would not err so gravely. The matter is a little complicated, more than people think, because there is a distinction between the First Grace of Justification and the Final Grace of Perseverance. If you note carefully, St. Alphonsus says clearly that the Act of Love of God is sufficient for Justification. That statement is intentional. Similarly, St. Thomas holds that such a person, even who received the Grace of Contrition from God shortly after the age of reason, provided he persevered and continued to pray for the Grace of Perseverance, would be enlightened, either by an Angel, or by a missionary teaching him the Catholic Faith, or at least by an interior illumination of Christ.
In Cornelius, we have an example of a virtuous pagan, who received the Grace of Justification before Baptism, then received the Catholic Faith, and then received Baptism also. I hold, with St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, that one must be a Christian with explicit faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ at the hour of death in order to be saved. I'm also open to what seems to have been the final view of St. Augustine, and like St. Benedict's Centre, which is in full communion with the Church, most certainly believe in Baptism of Desire for Justification, but am open to the idea that God will see to it that every person dying in the state of Grace will also receive Water Baptism, as indeed Fr. Feeney was reported to have changed his opinion to later on in life, when he was reconciled to the Church.
I do not believe anyone dying in the state of Grace can fail to go to Heaven ultimately. That seems to be heresy to me, respectfully. And SBC seems to agree now based on what they say below, read carefully, especially the last paragraph:
"[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Go Ye, Preach the Gospel to Every Creature, and Baptize[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]I wish to preface the following with an affirmation of the extreme importance of this issue in that the conversion of non-Christians to the Catholic Faith, in our day, is no longer considered a mission necessary for their salvation. The mandate of our Savior to “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16), has been supplanted by a new gospel of salvation by sincerity through invincible ignorance. It is my intention to restore at least an appreciation for the zeal of the holy missionaries that went forth to convert the nations to Christ and to baptize the pagans and infidels who accepted the good news that is the gospel. These missionaries, whose exemplar since the sixteenth century is Saint Francis Xavier, were not distracted by any speculation about a baptism of desire. Xavier baptized several hundred thousand pagans with his own hand. Biographers write that there were so many catechumens waiting to be baptized that assistants had to help him to lift his arm to perform the rite. Saint Francis Xavier never wrote a word about baptism of desire. Rather, he wrote these words from the Far East hoping to reach students aspiring for degrees: “How I would like to go to the universities of Paris and the Sorbonne and address many men who are richer in learning than in zeal, to let them know the great number of souls who, because of their neglect, are deprived of grace and are apt to go to hell. There are millions of nonbelievers who would become Christian if there were missionaries.” Was this missioner, considered the greatest after Saint Paul, misinformed? ...[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]“Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner [through baptism or confession] — whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost — are to be set the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord; for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name; and, do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. And, for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits. For this is that crown of justice which the Apostle declared was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: ‘If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting.’ ” (my italics)[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “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” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16.[/color]
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html (https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html)
-
St. Alphonsus himself held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. He entertained the theory of the implicit faith crowd by accepting the following distinction as excusing them from obvious heresy:
(Theologia Moralis, Lib.III, Cap 1, Q. 2) "[Implicit Faithers] respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance."
First of all, St. Alphonsus admits that "all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers' testimonies oppose this opinion", but lets them slither away from heresy by claiming that this was merely necessary by necessity of precept. [Remember for later that something that all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers' testimonies oppose must be considered heretical based on Vatican I's late definition regarding the infallibility of the OUM.]
Well, evidently St. Alphonsus was not privy the the 1703 decision of the Holy Office (some 40 years before the Theologian Moralis):
"Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing according to this remark of the Apostle: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder" (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.
Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized" (Denz. 2380).
So, here the Holy Office unequivocally condemns the out used by the implicit faith heretics by declaring explicit belief in Jesus Christ to be "necessary by a necessity of means" ... which is the direct opposite of necessary by necessity of precept (the dodge attempted by the implicit faith heretics).
-
There is no contradiction. By an Act of Contrition, a person may obtain justification and enter the State of Grace, as St. Alphonsus clearly says, and therefore enter the Church. But if he perseveres in the state of Grace, He will be enlightened by God in due time, before he receives the grace of final perseverance, at least in the hour of death, about Our Lord Jesus Christ, and will therefore die with explicit faith in Him and be saved as as Christian; of which we have examples, such as Fr. Hermann Cohen's mother. Thus, the two apparent discrepancies are reconciled perfectly, and St. Alphonsus doesn't contradict yourself. Does that answer your question on St. Alphonsus, Ladislaus.
Then you agree with St. Alphonsus that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for justification and salvation?
It is simply not true that an "infidel" can be saved by perfect love of God. Perfect love of God is not possible for an infidel, since it is not possible without supernatural faith. Not unless St. Alphonsus is using the term extremely loosely ... as if referring to merely an "unbaptized person with supernatural faith", but that's absurd given that the term infidel literally means someone without faith. At best this is an incredibly sloppy use of terms from a theologian. I can only hope that this was mistranslated by whoever produced this quotation in English.
-
As to your other question, was there no supernatural faith in the Old Testament? Then all of them are lost, and there is no difference between the just and the unjust.
No, the OT just were not lost. Nor, however, were they saved ... right away. They were in Limbo until such as time as they themselves became enlightened regarding the Holy Trinity and the Lord Jesus Christ. So it is clear that none of these entered heaven (were saved) without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
Some of the Church Fathers even held that these OT just were raised from the dead temporarily and baptized according to this ...
St. Mathew 27: 52-53
And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.
Indeed, why were these OT just ("saints") raised back to life ... just to create a spectacle?
All the Church Fathers agreed that the economy of salvation shifted after the Resurrection of Our Lord, so it is not possible to draw logical inferences from the OT just to the new economy of salvation.
-
That's a very truncated excerpt from St. Alphonsus Maria's Theologia Moralis. Here is the same quotation in its broader context. It should answer the question. Let me know if it doesn't.
Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Tome 2, Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2, pp. 104-106:21 “2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel? The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only… But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries. So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.
Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means… Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion… Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, ‘But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.’ They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…”
I agree with what St. Alphonsus Maria calls more probable. The other opinion is a tolerated one, like Molinism. Also note the distinction between justification and perseverance in grace in many of these early authorities.
-
I do not believe anyone dying in the state of Grace can fail to go to Heaven ultimately. That seems to be heresy to me, respectfully. And SBC seems to agree now based on what they say below, read carefully, especially the last paragraph:
No one believes that someone can die in a state of grace and not be in Heaven. But this sounds a bit like begging the question. You're assuming that someone in the New Testament can 1) be in a state of grace in the first place without Baptism and 2) allowed by God to die in that state without His ensuring that they receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Since you cite that passage from SBC, if you read the entire thing, you'll find that St. Augustine, considered by many to be the father of BoD, vehemently rejected BoD toward the end of his life. Some of the strongest statements against BoD in existence (cited in that article) come from St. Augustine. And the ONLY OTHER Father some reference as a proponent of BoD is St. Ambrose. But his oration at the funeral of Valentinian was ambiguous at best. Valentinian was killed by Arians for rejecting their heresy, so did St. Ambrose posit a Baptism of Blood? Or, recall, this was before the days of Twitter and the Internet. News of the details did not travel quickly. Did one of his attendants perhaps baptize him as he lay dying? All St. Ambrose said was that he received the grace that he sought ... totally open-ended, and in no way proof of his endorsement of BoD. In fact, in his De Sacramentis, St. Ambrose taught: " Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace."
So here's the state of the question among the Church Fathers:
Some believed in Baptism of Blood (including some who explicitly rejected Baptism of Desire).
St. Augustine speculated about it in his youth (saying something along the lines of how he had gone back and forth on the question, finally deciding that "it seems to me"). This was no statement of some authoritative teaching from Tradition. Then in his later years, he vehemently rejected it.
Then you have the ambiguous, inconclusive oration for Valentinian.
THAT'S IT. You had about 5 or 6 Church Fathers EXPLICITLY REJECT Baptism of Desire.
Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner had the intellectual honesty to admit this (and he would have loved to say that the contrary was true):
. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.
St. Fulgentius, a disciple of St. Augustine, also explicitly rejected Baptism of Desire.
After him and until the time of Hugh of St. Victor (about 600 years after Fulgentius) there was hardly a peep about this subject.
Right before the scholastic era, there was a revival of St. Augustine. So enamored were many of St. Augustine that the Church felt the need to condemn the proposition that it was permitted to prefer an opinion of Augustine to Church teaching.
In any case, Hugh of St. Victor argued FOR BoD, while Abelard argued AGAINST it. Abelard, also, by the way, was the first to reject the Augustinian tradition that unbaptized infants suffered in hell, and the Church sided with him and made Limbo her own doctrine.
To help resolve the dispute, Hugh of St. Victor wrote to St. Bernard. St. Bernard tentatively came down in favor of BoD based on his false impression that St. Augustine held it unequivocally (vs. having rejected it at the end of his life) and also based on a tenuous understanding of St. Ambrose on Valentian. He said he went with Augustine and Ambrose out of reverence ("whether in truth or in error"). He gave no actual theological defense of the opinion.
From there the opinion made it into Peter Lombard's Sententiae, which was the manual that essentially kicked off the scholastic movement. St. Thomas picked it up, and then of course it went viral due to his authority.
At any point here, do we have ANY evidence that BoD was revealed doctrine? We know revealed doctrine through either the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (and we see there was none about BoD as several Fathers rejected it and only a couple tentatively believed it) or else if one can demonstrate by argument that the doctrine derives implicitly and necessarily from other revealed truth. No such demonstration has ever been made.
This is why I refer to BoD as speculative theology. It is not revealed truth, nor is it even definable as such. Certainly, many Catholics held this view, but never has there been any theological proof of the position. St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, simply gave as his reason that the contrary (that a catechumen who died without baptism could not be saved) "seems too harsh" ... emotional theology. St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Augustine both explained that BoD speculation came from people who watched some devout catechumens who appeared devout pass away without Baptism while other scoundrels who lived terrible lives snuck Baptism in on their deathbeds. People considered this "unfair" and so speculated about a BoD. But St. Augustine realized, as he matured, that this emotional "reasoning" was nothing but a "vortex of confusion" that needed to be rejected if one "wished to be catholic." It opens up massive cans of worms when WE start speculating about what we believe would be fair and what would not be fair ... and trying to impose our standards on God.
As for BoB, many Fathers accepted it, and none explicitly rejected it. But some of the earliest Fathers considered it merely an alternate mode of receiving the Sacrament itself, and not an exception, as they saw the recipient washed (in blood vs. water) and posited that the angels said the words of Baptism to supply the form ... thus making it a Sacrament.
THIS is the status quaestionis of Baptism of Desire.
-
Here's the state of the question on explicit and implicit faith in Christ, per 3 pre-Vatican II authorities, for our reflection. Note the careful wording in Msgr. Fenton, Fr. Mueller, St. Alphonsus etc, in order to allow for the view of justification through implicit faith, but final salvation coming only after explicit faith in Christ, which Cardinal De Lugo, whom St. Alphonsus highly respects, also defends at length. That the OT just in limbo were saved in this way is also a defensible view; through implicit faith before Christ, and arriving at explicit faith in Him after His Coming there, and thereafter immediately going to Heaven to experience the blessed vision of God face to face forevermore. Thus, it is defensible to say, persons can be justified by an act of contrition, and obtain perseverance after explicit faith.
Fr. Sylvester Hunter, in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (1895) writes: "112. The Catholic Doctrine.—In opposition to all 112] THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 159 these, the doctrine of Catholic theology is that the body of public revealed doctrine has received no objective increase since the days of the Apostles. It is true, as St. Thomas remarks, (Summa Theol. 2. 2. q. I. a. 7. c.) that the whole of the Divine economy of salvation is in some sense contained in the two fundamental articles which have been revealed from the beginning, that God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek Him : the explicit belief in which truths is and always has been a necessary condition of salvation, according to the doctrine of St. Paul. (Hebrews xi. 6.) But the whole body of Christian doctrine could never have been discovered as contained in this primitive and, so to speak, elementary revelation, had not further revelations been vouchsafed ; and such revelations were given from time to time under the patriarchal dispensation, under the Mosaic Law, and during the life of Christ and His Apostles ; ...
"Regarding the points on which explicit knowledge is required as the indispensable means of justification, this certainly extends to the belief that God exists and that He shows Himself the Rewarder of them that seek Him. This amount of belief is declared by St. Paul to be essential, if any one will please God. (Hebrews 11:6). The Greek word Rewarder literally means the payer of wages: the seeking God is therefore the application to enter His service; and the absolute necessity of the knowledge specified will be readily understood, if anyone is to earn a reward.
So far there is universal agreement, and in fact the necessity that we have stated is not open to doubt, for Pope Innocent XI condemned the assertion that explicit belief that God rewards is not necessary (prop. 22; Denz. 1039). There is a controversy whether St. Paul, in the passage quoted, intended to mention all that is necessary, or whether explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is required. At one time, a few writers were found to maintain that this explicit belief not only is necessary, but always has been so: this is now held by no one but many followers of the Thomist school hold that it has been necessary since the revelation was brought by Christ, although under the Old Law it was not requisite. These found their opinion upon the language of Scripture, which frequently speaks of faith in Christ as the essential condition of salvation; and to believe in Christ means to believe that He is God and Man."
Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, citing St. Alphonsus and other authorities: "Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.”
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, writing during the reign of Pope Ven. Pius XII: "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation"
Edit: Ladislaus, note to you: I saw your post only after typing this. I will respond to you subsequently. God Bless.
-
That's a very truncated excerpt from St. Alphonsus Maria's Theologia Moralis. Here is the same quotation in its broader context. It should answer the question. Let me know if it doesn't.
...
I agree with what St. Alphonsus Maria calls more probable. The other opinion is a tolerated one, like Molinism. Also note the distinction between justification and perseverance in grace in many of these early authorities.
Did you not read the 1703 Holy Office declaration that explicit faith in Christ was necessary by necessity of means (rather than necessity of precept)? St. Alphonsus must not have. So, given the Holy Office declaration, that opinion is NOT "probable".
Vatican I also clearly taught that it is a requirement for supernatural faith to believe something which can ONLY be known by Revelation. Elsewhere, Vatican I taught that the existence of God and His attributes (justice, for example) CAN in fact be known with certainty by natural reason alone.
Between these two, despite the opinion of St. Alphonsus, the case is CLOSED against implicit faith.
-
Here's the state of the question on explicit and implicit faith in Christ, per 3 pre-Vatican II authorities, ...
And these are DEAD WRONG. For the third time, now, I refer you to the 1703 Holy Office decision and the teaching of Vatican I.
EDIT: I see now that you say you'll respond to that.
-
Regardless of the theological note of the opinion as possible/probable, one of these opinions is wrong.
If the "less probable" one is wrong, then it's also heretical, since St. Alphonsus admitted that all of the Scriptures and Church Fathers taught the necessity of explicit faith. If the "distinction" of necessity of precept is wrong/mistaken, then this weight of authority renders explicit faith being necessary by necessity of means to be dogma, and the contrary heresy.
Some day the FULL weight of Church authority will definitively address this issue ... just as the Church has taught the necessity of Baptism of by necessity of means.
But Church authority is AGAINST implicit faith theory ...
1) the vast majority of Catholic theologians reject it
2) Holy Office rejected it (1703)
3) Vatican I taught against it in principle
So one who adopts the "improbable" opinion is flirting with heresy.
Finally, we see the pernicious fruits of this position, and by its fruits we know it. It has led to an erosion of belief in EENS dogma, which in turn has led to Vatican II and the veritable apostasy that came in its wake.
-
You have misunderstood the matter. One question is which is true, another what is the status of each. I'm a Thomist on both this issue and Predestination and Grace; but I respect that both Molinism and implicit faith are permitted by the Magisterium. They are not unaware of the controversy and have chosen to permit it all these many centuries. But the first principle for a real Thomist is respect for the Magisterium of the Church. When the Dominicans, who were Thomists, were told not to attack the Jesuits, who were Molinists, they unhesitatingly obeyed. Because that's what Thomists do and that's what St. Thomas taught us. You it seems would have attacked the Magisterium for doing so, and maybe become a sede-doubtist at the time. St. Thomas "I receive Thee, Redeeming Prince of my soul (Viaticuм on his deathbed), for Whose Love I have watched, studied and labored. Thee have I preached, Thee have I taught, ne'er have I said aught against Thee ... I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in Whose obedience I pass from this life". That is St. Thomas; Model Roman Catholic Theologian. What one doesn't observe in some who profess agreement with the Dimonds.
Also, clarify once and for all whether you're a Dimondite or a Feeneyite, which you keep wavering on. If you're a Feeneyite, you shouldn't even be attacking the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire. Even Fr. Feeney at times admitted an Act of Love or Contrition could justify, but it was very difficult, which is true; the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire states an Act of Love or Contrition justifies; it doesn't preclude later enlightenment about Christ as I said. So answer this question, if without knowledge of the Trinity, no one can be justified, how did the Just go to Limbo, and the wicked to hellfire? According to you, all must have gone to hellfire, since none could be justified.
We hold they were Justified by Perfect Contrition, which therefore is proved to have been possible to them; and therefore it is proven supernatural faith and contrition can exist in one who believes in and loves God with all his strength; this justice as I said, doesn't preclude enlightenment later on before perseverance is conferred. Thus, those justified by implicit faith, were saved after explicit faith.
"III. IS IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE AN ACT OF PERFECT CONTRITION? No doubt, it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect Contrition than an Imperfect one, which suffices when we go to Confession. But still, there is no one who, if he sincerely wishes it, cannot, with the grace of God, make an act of Perfect Contrition. Sorrow is in the will, not in the senses or feelings. All that is needed is that we repent because we love God above everything else; that is all. True it is that Perfect Contrition has its degrees, but it is none the less perfect because it does not reach the intensity and sublimity of the sorrow of St. Peter, of St. Mary Magdalene, or of St. Aloysius. Such a degree is very desirable, but is by no means necessary. A lesser degree, but, provided it proceeds from the love of God, and not through fear of His punishments, is quite sufficient. And it is very consoling to remember that for the 4000 years before the coming of Christ the only means sinners had of obtaining pardon was this same Perfect Contrition. There was no Sacrament of Penance in those days. Even today for thousands-aye, for millions-of pagans, of non-Catholics, and of Catholics, too, who have no time to call a priest to their bedside, the only means of pardon and [in time] salvation is an act of Perfect Contrition." https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-110.shtml) This is why Bp. Fellay says a Hindu in Tibet can be in the State of Grace, which you appear not to believe possible; but Bp. Fellay doesn't say that Hindu will be saved as he is, and doesn't preclude that that Hindu will be enlightened before death and die as a Christian having received perseverance in Grace after it; as Bp. Fellay has explained elsewhere. Even Rome knows the controversy remains open, and both Bp. Fellay and even some recent Magisterial texts have favored explicit faith for final salvation; while leaving justification through implicit faith open as a possibility.
You also seem not to have realized the import of one of the citations you provided: "Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before [Christian?]Faith." Read it again: what does it say? St. Gregory said at his father's funeral oration, who died a Christian, that his manner of living while yet a non-Christian, already made him one of them. Something, God later confirmed by making him a Christian. That's what this quote of Fr. Rahner that you gave is talking about. It's also very well known to patristic scholars that some of the Fathers were universalists; they believed everyone would be sanctified and saved in the end, though sometimes after terrible sufferings before that. So, the case you want to make from the Fathers is weak. No one denies St. Mary Magdalene, St. Peter the Apostle, King David etc obtained Grace and Justification through Contrition.
-
Regardless of the theological note of the opinion as possible/probable, one of these opinions is wrong.
If the "less probable" one is wrong, then it's also heretical, since St. Alphonsus admitted that all of the Scriptures and Church Fathers taught the necessity of explicit faith. If the "distinction" of necessity of precept is wrong/mistaken, then this weight of authority renders explicit faith being necessary by necessity of means to be dogma, and the contrary heresy.
Some day the FULL weight of Church authority will definitively address this issue ... just as the Church has taught the necessity of Baptism of by necessity of means.
But Church authority is AGAINST implicit faith theory ...
1) the vast majority of Catholic theologians reject it
2) Holy Office rejected it (1703)
3) Vatican I taught against it in principle
So one who adopts the "improbable" opinion is flirting with heresy.
Finally, we see the pernicious fruits of this position, and by its fruits we know it. It has led to an erosion of belief in EENS dogma, which in turn has led to Vatican II and the veritable apostasy that came in its wake.
1) should be that no Father, Doctor or saint ever supported the idea.
RE: Finally, we see the pernicious fruits of this position, and by its fruits we know it. It has led to an erosion of belief in EENS dogma, which in turn has led to Vatican II and the veritable apostasy that came in its wake.
XavierSem is a kid who does not see anything wrong with Vatican II nor any apostacy, in fact he wants to join the Conciliar Church. It makes sense that he does not want to interpret the dogmas on EENS as they are written. By their fruits you shall know them. No surprise there.
-
You have misunderstood the matter. One question is which is true, another what is the status of each. I'm a Thomist on both this issue and Predestination and Grace; but I respect that both Molinism and implicit faith are permitted by the Magisterium.
Molinism has been permitted by the Magisterium. Implicit faith has been REJECTED. It was rejected in 1703 by the Holy Office and rejected in principle by Vatican I. It is YOU who thoroughly misunderstand this matter. You continue to IGNORE both the Holy Office and Vatican I.
-
Also, clarify once and for all whether you're a Dimondite or a Feeneyite, which you keep wavering on. If you're a Feeneyite, you shouldn't even be attacking the Doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
Now you're just being dishonest ... to cover your tracks. I have never once identified myself as a Dimondite. I have "clarified" this many times. I have REPEATEDLY stated that there are very few actual Dimondites on this forum. And I have REPEATEDLY stated, as has LastTrad, that neither of us care about Baptism of Desire per se, when understood in the Thomistic sense, applied to catechumens or those with explicit faith in the central mysteries of the Faith. I just finished praising Matto, who believes in BoD, for his position on EENS. I repeatedly praised Arvinger, who also believed in Baptism of Desire, for his vigorous defense of EENS and of Tridentine ecclesiology which teaches that the Church is a visible society with identifiable members known in the external forum.
-
So answer this question, if without knowledge of the Trinity, no one can be justified, how did the Just go to Limbo, and the wicked to hellfire? According to you, all must have gone to hellfire, since none could be justified.
:facepalm:
I answered this question THOROUGHLY several posts ago.
Besides my answer, do you think that St. Thomas and the Holy Office and the majority of theologians who hold that explicit faith in the central mysteries is necessary by necessity of means for justification were not aware of this? Your yourself pretend (and it's evidently just a pretense) to also believe in the necessity of explicit faith ... what is YOUR answer to this question? So either you're being disingenuous with this question or you're a liar and don't really believe in the necessity of explicit faith for justification. We get nothing but dishonest sophistry from you.
-
You're a malicious faithless bad willed demon, a lying heretic, or both.
I said clearly an Act of Contrition for Justification. Explicit Faith for Salvation.
You really are a totally reprobate bad willed liar who lies a lot, Liarslaus.
-
#1 is a given, but #2 is not necessary. Even #1 doesn't have to be explicit, however, since it's hard to have explicit contrition for something you don't know about. So #1 can be implicit. Now, the obligation remains to confess the sin if it later comes to mind, but the soul is already in a state of justification. With any Sacrament, there's matter and form, and a merely material omission of a sin due to forgetfulness does not compromise the formal integrity of the Sacrament, any more than a purely material heresy excludes someone from the Church.
Thank you for correcting me.
I appreciate that a contrition of a forgotten sin may be impossible but the honest and explicit intention to recall all and confess them, is required. I cannot obtain absolution if I confess without this explicit desire to recall all sins and obtain absolution for all sins, even those that I forget. Or, at lest, this is what I am being taught. Explicit intention is key.
But my point was that, if an explicit intention is key for confession, then also an explicit intention must be key for baptism.
This would open the possibility of Bod to a very limited number of cases (*)1 and confirm the exclusion for souls who: (a) know of Christianity and of the sacrament of baptism but do not explicitly desire it or have the explicit intention and (b) do not even know of the existence of Christianity and the sacrament of baptism and therefore have no explicit intention.
(*)1 a soul who knows about the sacrament of baptism and explicitly desires it but dies before he can obtain it.
-
The canon is in the Seventh Session, titled: "Decree on The Sacraments", therefore, the canon is strictly about the sacrament of baptism, not the rubrics surrounding the ceremony or anything else.
May we do a careful, comprehensive reading of this canon by splitting it into two parts?
First, note that like Trent's first quote above, the subject matter of the canon is about the sacrament(s), not a desire for them:
PART 1) CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;...[let him be anathema].
This first half of the canon alone should be all anyone needs to see that a BOD, which is not a sacrament, contradicts Trent.
Note that Part 1 condemns those who saith that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation. This means we must believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. Certainly you cannot disagree here.
I assume you will agree that a BOD is not a sacrament, yet by saying a BOD is salvific, you are saying a) the sacrament is not necessary for salvation and b) by saying a BOD is salvific, what you are saying is that the sacrament is superfluous. Trent condemns both, a and b.
Okay, let’s apply the reasoning of your private interpretation of this canon to another canon from the same council and see what conclusions, if any, we can draw. Put your private interpretation cap on as we review Canon VI on Penance.
CANON VI.--If any one denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law, or is necessary to salvation; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.
If we use the Fr. Feeney/Protestant approach here, which necessarily entails disregarding anything and everything the Popes, theologians, and "fallible catechisms" have taught about this subject, this canon clearly means no one can be saved without receiving the sacrament of confession. Not only does that mean those who fall into mortal sin after baptism cannot be saved without sacramental confession (perfect contrition wouldn’t suffice), but it also means those below the age of reason who never sinned can’t be saved without it.
Do you believe baptized children who die below the age of reason, without ever having received the sacrament of confession, can be saved, or do you believe what the infallible decree of the Council of Trent teaches?
Another problem is that that if we believe this canon as you to the equivalent canon on baptism, we run into a contradiction. If the Blessed Mother was free from all actual sin she never had anything to confess, and therefore could not have received the sacrament of confession (since one requirement for the sacrament is contrition for sin). How can we believe the dogma that the Blessed Mother he was assumed into heaven, while at the same time believing the infallible canon from Trent saying the sacrament is confession is necessary for salvation?
-
Thank you for correcting me.
I appreciate that a contrition of a forgotten sin may be impossible but the honest and explicit intention to recall all and confess them, is required. I cannot obtain absolution if I confess without this explicit desire to recall all sins and obtain absolution for all sins, even those that I forget. Or, at lest, this is what I am being taught. Explicit intention is key.
But my point was that, if an explicit intention is key for confession, then also an explicit intention must be key for baptism.
This would open the possibility of Bod to a very limited number of cases (*)1 and confirm the exclusion for souls who: (a) know of Christianity and of the sacrament of baptism but do not explicitly desire it or have the explicit intention and (b) do not even know of the existence of Christianity and the sacrament of baptism and therefore have no explicit intention.
(*)1 a soul who knows about the sacrament of baptism and explicitly desires it but dies before he can obtain it.
Indeed, you have to have sincere contrition for and the intention to confess every mortal sin; in other words, you can't be deliberately hiding or holding back on any.
Certainly, if there is such a thing as BoD, then I believe that an explicit intention would be necessary. If you look at what Trent taught about Confession, initially the text read that perfect contrition sufficed to restore a soul to justification. But the Pope, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intervened and insisted that the condition also of intending to confess the sin be added as necessary. And that is what Trent taught infallibly. Certainly the intention to confess could be read implicitly into perfect contrition. I mean, if you're perfectly contrite, then you implicitly also would intend to make whatever act of reparation God requires, including Confession. So this notion that the intention to confess would be implicit in perfect contrition was rejected by Trent for Confession. So why should we imagine that an implicit intention could suffice for Baptism ... when Trent taught that it does NOT suffice for confession? There's no reason to believe this, and it's a huge stretch. So you raise a very important point that I had not completely thought through before.
PS ... too many Traditional Catholics falsely believe that one need only have perfect contrition to be restored to a state of justification. But Trent teaches that this does not suffice but must be combined with the intention to confess those sins as soon as it is reasonably possible.
I've used this analogy before, for Baptism, but it also applies to Confession. We have a man who loves a woman deeply, proposes (and she accepts), sets a date, rents out a hall, sends out invitations, and schedules everything with the priest. But now, 5 minutes before the actual vows, he gets cold feet and bails out. Despite ALL his intentions, he was never married. So, with Confession also ... and Baptism. I can be deeply sorry, but unless I intend (vow, even) to go to Confession, then I'm not really sorry and am not restored to a state of grace (per Trent). And, so also with Baptism. Even if one believes that Trent taught BoD, the word Trent uses is votum, which in Medieval Latin meant a solemn vow (like the ones pronounced at marriage or by a religious) ... and our word "vow" derives from this word as well. There is no indication anywhere among the Church doctors or in the Magisterium that BoD can ever apply to anyone other than a catechumen.
-
Okay, let’s apply the reasoning of your private interpretation of this canon to another canon from the same council and see what conclusions, if any, we can draw. Put your private interpretation cap on as we review Canon VI on Penance.
CANON VI.--If any one denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law, or is necessary to salvation; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.
If we use the Fr. Feeney/Protestant approach here, which necessarily entails disregarding anything and everything the Popes, theologians, and "fallible catechisms" have taught about this subject, this canon clearly means no one can be saved without receiving the sacrament of confession. Not only does that mean those who fall into mortal sin after baptism cannot be saved without sacramental confession (perfect contrition wouldn’t suffice), but it also means those below the age of reason who never sinned can’t be saved without it.
Do you believe baptized children who die below the age of reason, without ever having received the sacrament of confession, can be saved, or do you believe what the infallible decree of the Council of Trent teaches?
Another problem is that that if we believe this canon as you to the equivalent canon on baptism, we run into a contradiction. If the Blessed Mother was free from all actual sin she never had anything to confess, and therefore could not have received the sacrament of confession (since one requirement for the sacrament is contrition for sin). How can we believe the dogma that the Blessed Mother he was assumed into heaven, while at the same time believing the infallible canon from Trent saying the sacrament is confession is necessary for salvation?
With regard to your later example of Our Lady, it's obvious that the context (as explained in the main expository text of Trent) is that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary for salvation ... for those who had fallen from their baptismal state of justification. But otherwise, you are quite wrong. It IS in fact the Sacrament of Confession that is necessary for salvation. What non-Sacramental confession could exist that even Our Lady could have? Confession is not some weak metaphor for "loving God" or some other such nonsense. So it is in fact the Sacrament that is necessary.
Now, with that said, there is an out that would excuse BoDers from heresy, and I hinted at this earlier. When a person has perfect contrition AND has the intention or will to confess his sins, the Sacrament of Confession indeed remains necessary. How could one DESIRE/INTEND Confession without there being, ehm, a Confession to desire? Consequently, I agree (against the Dimonds) that Baptism of Desire is not rendered heretical based upon the teaching of Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. So I think this is kindof what you were grasping at, but it's not correct to say that the SACRAMENTS are not necessary for salvation. That WOULD indeed be heretical. So, does it suffice to receive the Sacrament in voto?
I argue that what suffices for Confession does not suffice for Baptism. Why? Because of essence in the Sacrament is the CHARACTER it bestows. It is this character that incorporates into the Church and renders souls recognizable as adopted sons of God. So, for instance, there can be no "Confirmation of desire" nor any "Holy Orders of desire". While certainly SOME of the graces bestowed by confirmation can be received in different ways, the full effect of the Sacrament cannot be had. No man has ever become a priest by desiring it. In other words, with the character Sacraments, the effect of the Sacrament cannot be had by desire. So one cannot prove Baptism of Desire from what Trent taught about Confession. What's at issue is .... WHAT does the character of Baptism actually do or provide? Most have written off the character as just a "badge or honor" or a "non-repeatability marker" or something. But that is not the actual explanation. So the question is really: is the CHARACTER of Baptism essential for salvation? I hold that it is. I won't digress into all my arguments here, but just wanted to frame the question.
-
Okay, let’s apply the reasoning of your private interpretation of this canon to another canon from the same council and see what conclusions, if any, we can draw. Put your private interpretation cap on as we review Canon VI on Penance.....
Ok, we have gone way off base.
Rather than me refuting your points, then you refute mine, next thing you know ad hominems are flung at each other and we end up getting nowhere, just answer my original query.........I wanted you to address specifically the contradiction to dogma, scripture and what the Church has always taught, but all you did was the same thing all BODers do - come back with contrary teachings as if they are taught by the Church, and I got sucked in and started the same tired old debate process with you. I want to get away from that.
I hope to move slowly and avoid book length posts by moving only step by step....
The first item I'd like you to address is:
Canon IV of Trent begins by saying that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, and ends by saying the sacraments or the desire thereof are necessary for justification. Certainly you nor anyone can possibly disagree with this. But if you do, then explain why you disagree with what it says.
I mean Trent just said the sacrament is necessary unto salvation, but you say it isn't. To all people in the English speaking world, by definition *that* is a contradiction. I assume you agree that a BOD is not a sacrament, if so, do you see the contradiction to the dogma by saying that one who dies without the sacrament is in fact saved?
-
I mean Trent just said the sacrament is necessary unto salvation, but you say it isn't. To all people in the English speaking world, by definition *that* is a contradiction.
Stubborn, do you believe the sacrament of confession is necessary for salvation? Yes or no.
-
The Council of Trent itself clearly teaches the doctrine of Baptism of Desire Dogmatically, for it speaks of the voto of Baptism, which is nothing other than Baptism of Desire, as can be seen by comparison with the voto of Penance and the voto of the Eucharist, which is Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion respectively. Next, the Fathers of Trent teach a catechumen can obtain grace and justice by his desire to be baptized and contrition for past sins in the Roman Catechism of Trent; the Code of Canon Law gives the authorized interpretation of the same Church that Baptism, or its voto, is necessary for salvation. Thus, in no time at all, one can think of three dogmatic, doctrinal and authoritative Church sources that teach us most plainly the Sacred Doctrine or Dogma of Baptism of Desire. St. Alphonsus says Baptism of Desire is likely de fide. Hence, he who denies it, after it has been solemnly taught by the Church, is like he who denies the Sacred Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, after it has been taught us by the Church, and can therefore be justly regarded as a heretic in the external forum by Roman Catholics; provided that he is truly obstinate, and entirely unwilling to listen to the Church, though not otherwise.
-
The Council of Trent itself clearly teaches the doctrine of Baptism of Desire Dogmatically, for it speaks of the voto of Baptism
It most certainly does not. What does Trent say about the votum? That [initial] justification cannot happen without it. CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT [it] does not equate to CAN HAPPEN WITH it ALONE. There's no positive definition along the lines of SOULS CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY it ALONE. Period.
Again, I don't care if you want to believe in Baptism of Desire for catechumens, but stop promoting this heretical garbage that infidels can be saved.
-
Next, the Fathers of Trent teach a catechumen can obtain grace and justice by his desire to be baptized and contrition for past sins in the Roman Catechism of Trent; ...
No, it does not. Roman Catechism states that the delay of Baptism for adults to be properly catechized is appropriate given that if they truly desire Baptism, they will not be prevented by some mishap from receiving it. This echos the exact the language of St. Fulgentius, who proceeds to say that God will allow them to persevere until the Sacrament.
Again, however, if you want to believe in BoD for the "catechumen," and stop there, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. But you need to stop spreadiing and condoning the pernicious heresy that infidels, heretics, and schismatics can be saved.
-
stop promoting this heretical garbage that infidels can be saved.
You're a faithless liar, a lying heretic. I teach that only Christians with explicit faith in Christ are saved. I teach, with Pope St. Pius X and St. Alphonsus Maria, that perfect love of God, or contrition, with the desire of the Sacraments, immediately justifies. You're an obstinate heretic, and obstinate heretics like you cannot be saved, unless you return to the Church, and publicly retract your heresies before a Bishop.
-
You're a faithless liar, a lying heretic. I teach that only Christians with explicit faith in Christ are saved.
You lying sack of excrement. You JUST STARTED a thread promoting the exact opposite, de Lugo's verbatim rejecting of the teaching of Florence.
-
I said clearly an Act of Contrition for Justification.
As has been said to you multiple times, this is NOT what Trent says. You can quote every saint who ever lived, and every theolgy manual ever written, and it doesn’t change the DOCTRINE of Trent.
.
A cafeteria-catholic picks and chooses which morals to follow, of which you are not one, as you seem to be moral. But you are definitely a library-catholic, who picks and chooses their theology based on which books they like. That’s scarier because it mixes intelligence with error, just like at V2. Plenty like you out there. Lord help us!
-
Stubborn, do you believe the sacrament of confession is necessary for salvation? Yes or no.
This is completely ignoring, not answering my simple question.
The answer to your question is YES, as Trent teaches, it is "necessary for all who have fallen after baptism."
Will you answer my question to you? Please accept that I have no interest whatsoever in debating the idea of a BOD itself, only if you see can for the contradiction that it is to this dogma as decreed at Trent.
-
This is completely ignoring, not answering my simple question.
The answer to your question is YES, as Trent teaches, it is "necessary for all who have fallen after baptism."
Will you answer my question to you? Please accept that I have no interest whatsoever in debating the idea of a BOD itself, only if you see can the contradiction that it is to this dogma as decreed at Trent.
Not so fast. I want to make sure that you accept the infallible decree from the Council of Trent, as it is written. Isn't that what the Feeneyite heretics always say they do? They believe the dogmas as they are written? Here again is what the Council infallibly teaching is necessary for salvation:
CANON VI.--If any one denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law, or is necessary to salvation; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.
Three questions:
1) Do you agree that sacrament of confession is necessary to salvation, as the infallible decree teaches? If not, you are anathema.
2) Do you believe a person can be saved without sacramental confession (e.g., The Blessed Mother, baptized children who died before reaching the age of reason, etc.)?
3) If you answered yes to number two, I want to know "if you can see the contradiction that it is to the dogma as decreed at Trent"?
-
Here's the state of the question on explicit and implicit faith in Christ, per 3 pre-Vatican II authorities, for our reflection. Note the careful wording in Msgr. Fenton, Fr. Mueller, St. Alphonsus etc, in order to allow for the view of justification through implicit faith, but final salvation coming only after explicit faith in Christ, which Cardinal De Lugo, whom St. Alphonsus highly respects, also defends at length. That the OT just in limbo were saved in this way is also a defensible view; through implicit faith before Christ, and arriving at explicit faith in Him after His Coming there, and thereafter immediately going to Heaven to experience the blessed vision of God face to face forevermore. Thus, it is defensible to say, persons can be justified by an act of contrition, and obtain perseverance after explicit faith.
Fr. Sylvester Hunter, in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (1895) writes: "112. The Catholic Doctrine.—In opposition to all 112] THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 159 these, the doctrine of Catholic theology is that the body of public revealed doctrine has received no objective increase since the days of the Apostles. It is true, as St. Thomas remarks, (Summa Theol. 2. 2. q. I. a. 7. c.) that the whole of the Divine economy of salvation is in some sense contained in the two fundamental articles which have been revealed from the beginning, that God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek Him : the explicit belief in which truths is and always has been a necessary condition of salvation, according to the doctrine of St. Paul. (Hebrews xi. 6.) But the whole body of Christian doctrine could never have been discovered as contained in this primitive and, so to speak, elementary revelation, had not further revelations been vouchsafed ; and such revelations were given from time to time under the patriarchal dispensation, under the Mosaic Law, and during the life of Christ and His Apostles ; ...
"Regarding the points on which explicit knowledge is required as the indispensable means of justification, this certainly extends to the belief that God exists and that He shows Himself the Rewarder of them that seek Him. This amount of belief is declared by St. Paul to be essential, if any one will please God. (Hebrews 11:6). The Greek word Rewarder literally means the payer of wages: the seeking God is therefore the application to enter His service; and the absolute necessity of the knowledge specified will be readily understood, if anyone is to earn a reward.
So far there is universal agreement, and in fact the necessity that we have stated is not open to doubt, for Pope Innocent XI condemned the assertion that explicit belief that God rewards is not necessary (prop. 22; Denz. 1039). There is a controversy whether St. Paul, in the passage quoted, intended to mention all that is necessary, or whether explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is required. At one time, a few writers were found to maintain that this explicit belief not only is necessary, but always has been so: this is now held by no one but many followers of the Thomist school hold that it has been necessary since the revelation was brought by Christ, although under the Old Law it was not requisite. These found their opinion upon the language of Scripture, which frequently speaks of faith in Christ as the essential condition of salvation; and to believe in Christ means to believe that He is God and Man."
Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, citing St. Alphonsus and other authorities: "Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.”
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, writing during the reign of Pope Ven. Pius XII: "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation"
Edit: Ladislaus, note to you: I saw your post only after typing this. I will respond to you subsequently. God Bless.
Xavier,
Thanks for providing the quotes, particularly for the Sylvius quote in a prior post.
Fr. Hunter writes:
At one time, a few writers were found to maintain that this explicit belief not only is necessary, but always has been so: this is now held by no one
I believe that view is defensible (though "now held by no one") and supported by Scripture: the most obvious example is Our Lord saying father Abraham, the father of those who believe, saw His day and was glad (John 8:56), and I believe almost every prophet and OT saint who wrote Scripture (e.g., Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) referred to Christ in their writings, so arguably had some explicit knowledge of Him, though God kept it under wraps from general consumption until the "fullness of time."
So I'm curious: are you aware of any Magisterial statements indicating that explicit belief in Christ was not required at some time prior to the explicit promulgation of the gospel by the apostles?
Thanks,
DR
-
After all, as Ladislaus has pointed out, the "theologians" were certainly morally unanimous (if not numerically unanimous) in adopting the view of St. Augustine regarding unbaptized infants suffering some mild punishment of actual torment or suffering in hell for centuries, yet the Magisterium never adopted that view and the theologians went against it and for a Limbo paradise of natural happiness for the same infants.
I'm with Stubborn in being generally suspicious of theologian bandwagons . . . it is the Magisterium that speaks with the voice of God.
-
Not so fast. I want to make sure that you accept the infallible decree from the Council of Trent, as it is written. Isn't that what the Feeneyite heretics always say they do? They believe the dogmas as they are written? Here again is what the Council infallibly teaching is necessary for salvation:
CANON VI.--If any one denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law, or is necessary to salvation; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.
Three questions:
1) Do you agree that sacrament of confession is necessary to salvation, as the infallible decree teaches? If not, you are anathema.
2) Do you believe a person can be saved without sacramental confession (e.g., The Blessed Mother, baptized children who died before reaching the age of reason, etc.)?
3) If you answered yes to number two, I want to know "if you can see the contradiction that it is to the dogma as decreed at Trent"?
I do not, and have not denied that sacramental confession is necessary to salvation, I gave you Trent's exact answer to your question - if you fail to understand it, then simply read Trent until it makes sense to you. Although I do understand your game because it is plain to see that you cannot answer my question without cutting your own throat, which is why you prefer to simply ignore my question and in the process, ignore your own contradiction.
FYI, Trent and all pre-V2 Council teachings are to be understood as decreed, per V1. Per V1, we are not even permitted to interpret them because to do so abandons the meaning of sacred dogma. Always remember that dogma is sacred, it is a sacred thing and changing it in any way is a desecration - which is why we may not interpret dogma.
Starting with V2, one is forced to interpret the docuмents due to the purposely ambiguous language they used. So simply read Trent without interpretation and for what it teaches, do that and you will have no need of this silly exercise in futility.
If this is the game you are going to play then we may as well end now, if however you choose to answer my question truthfully, then we can move onto the next and final step which will prove your contradiction, you will have no "out".
"From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism..."
All you need to read is the words I underlined.
-
After all, as Ladislaus has pointed out, the "theologians" were certainly morally unanimous (if not numerically unanimous) in adopting the view of St. Augustine regarding unbaptized infants suffering some mild punishment of actual torment or suffering in hell for centuries, yet the Magisterium never adopted that view and the theologians went against it and for a Limbo paradise of natural happiness for the same infants.
I'm with Stubborn in being generally suspicious of theologian bandwagons . . . it is the Magisterium that speaks with the voice of God.
Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens. At best, they're a "reflection," as it were, of the Ecclesia Credens. But ... even IF one attempted to argue that they're an extension of the Church's OUM, the OUM is infallible to the extent that the Church has taught something to be divinely revealed always and everywhere. Among the Church Fathers, we have far more who reject BoD than who endorse it, and none of them teach it with any kind of authority, presenting it as something divinely revealed and part of the Deposit of Revelation. Just because we have a small handful of theologians claiming that it's de fide, this does not make it so.
-
Indeed, you have to have sincere contrition for and the intention to confess every mortal sin; in other words, you can't be deliberately hiding or holding back on any.
Certainly, if there is such a thing as BoD, then I believe that an explicit intention would be necessary. If you look at what Trent taught about Confession, initially the text read that perfect contrition sufficed to restore a soul to justification. But the Pope, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intervened and insisted that the condition also of intending to confess the sin be added as necessary. And that is what Trent taught infallibly. Certainly the intention to confess could be read implicitly into perfect contrition. I mean, if you're perfectly contrite, then you implicitly also would intend to make whatever act of reparation God requires, including Confession. So this notion that the intention to confess would be implicit in perfect contrition was rejected by Trent for Confession. So why should we imagine that an implicit intention could suffice for Baptism ... when Trent taught that it does NOT suffice for confession? There's no reason to believe this, and it's a huge stretch. So you raise a very important point that I had not completely thought through before.
PS ... too many Traditional Catholics falsely believe that one need only have perfect contrition to be restored to a state of justification. But Trent teaches that this does not suffice but must be combined with the intention to confess those sins as soon as it is reasonably possible.
I've used this analogy before, for Baptism, but it also applies to Confession. We have a man who loves a woman deeply, proposes (and she accepts), sets a date, rents out a hall, sends out invitations, and schedules everything with the priest. But now, 5 minutes before the actual vows, he gets cold feet and bails out. Despite ALL his intentions, he was never married. So, with Confession also ... and Baptism. I can be deeply sorry, but unless I intend (vow, even) to go to Confession, then I'm not really sorry and am not restored to a state of grace (per Trent). And, so also with Baptism. Even if one believes that Trent taught BoD, the word Trent uses is votum, which in Medieval Latin meant a solemn vow (like the ones pronounced at marriage or by a religious) ... and our word "vow" derives from this word as well. There is no indication anywhere among the Church doctors or in the Magisterium that BoD can ever apply to anyone other than a catechumen.
Reading this long thread and others where you and other members who reject BoD posted, I have reached my personal, and maybe erroneous, conviction that BoD cannot be a correct doctrine.
If at all possible, then I would believe it possible only for a catechumen who dies before he can be baptized.
Of course I also believe that God can save anyone but I do not believe that it is for man to interpret God's will.
In today's Gospel, the owner of the vine, tells the labourers that he is free to pay whatever he wills to whomever. But in the same passage it is clearly underlined the importance for man to work for his pay.
These are two Truths are only apparently in contradiction (*) and they reinforce two concepts:
1. God can save anyone.
2. Man must do the right thing regardless.
(*) It is only an apparent contradiction that while God can save anyone, He still requires all to work for salvation.
I interpret (2) to mean that man must "work" for his baptism; i.e. he must have the explicit intention to be baptized. This, for me, excludes the "implicit" BoD interpretation.
Thank you for helping me reach my conviction. For me this doctrine is at the very core of why I believe the reform to be an error because I believe in veritas ante caritas. If we concede that the doctrine of BoD is correct, then we must also agree that charity comes before Truth. V2 would then be correct and simply outline the truth. We would then be in error, if we reject V2. If the BoD doctrine is correct, then God's Church must includes all religions and even atheism and there would be no point to be Catholic or otherwise.
Regardless, I do believe that all interlocutors in this conversation have proven their genuine search for Truth without negligence and, therefore, I hope that God will forgive those of us who are on the wrong in this debate.
God bless all for helping me understand this complex doctrine.
-
Reading this long thread and others where you and other members who reject BoD posted, I have reached my personal, and maybe erroneous, conviction that BoD cannot be a correct doctrine.
If at all possible, then I would believe it possible only for a catechumen who dies before he can be baptized.
Of course I also believe that God can save anyone but I do not believe that it is for man to interpret God's will.
Yes, this is my position also. Do I hold with the certainty of faith that God has never allowed someone to be saved by a Baptism of Desire? No. I simply hold that, if He does, He has not revealed it. If, after I die, I find that some catechumen has been saved in this manner, then glory be to God.
In the meantime, this speculative theory only causes harm. It erodes people's believe in the necessity of Baptism. As Father Feeney put it, believing in Baptism of Desire actually would undermine one's ability to achieve this state, since instead of ardently desiring the Sacrament (which would be required), one becomes complacent that one might attain justification without the actual Sacrament.
-
Thank you for helping me reach my conviction. For me this doctrine is at the very core of why I believe the reform to be an error because I believe in veritas ante caritas. If we concede that the doctrine of BoD is correct, then we must also agree that charity comes before Truth. V2 would then be correct and simply outline the truth. We would then be in error, if we reject V2. If the BoD doctrine is correct, then God's Church must includes all religions and even atheism and there would be no point to be Catholic or otherwise.
Yes, again, we must be careful to distinguish between a Thomistic Baptism of Desire, applied to a catechumenm and the extended BoD. As even Karl Rahner wrote, those few Fathers who entertained the notion limited it to the catechumen, but for them the catechumen was already a part of the visible Church. In the early days, catechumens became such through a formal ceremony in which they were signed with the sign of the cross and allowed to be called "Christianus." That's why St. Robert Bellarmine considered them to be "in the vestibule" of the Church, basically, having one foot in the door, with one foot outside. One could describe them as imperfect or incomplete members of the Church by virtue of their visible adherence to the Church through their profession of faith.
Where the bigger problem lies is with the extension of BoD to all manner of non-Catholics and infidels. If these can be saved then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, we must hold that non-Catholics and infidels can be inside the Church. This is in fact Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell. If someone were to convince me that this is Catholic doctrine, then I immediately withdraw any objections I ever had to Vatican II. Vatican II is doing nothing more than elaborating the ecclesiology and soteriology that derive from this extended BoD. But I see the fruits of this doctrine, and the fruits of Vatican II, a widescale massive RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM. This cannot be of God or the Holy Ghost, and therefore this is why ... to me ... this EXTENDED BOD doctrine cannot be true.
Now, if someone wanted to hold the BoD of St. Thomas or St. Robert Bellarmine, who am I to reject that as non-Catholic? Besides, as I have mentioned, it is not intrinsically inimical with EENS and Tridentine ecclesiology. I vehemently disagree with the Dimonds, for instance, who consider ANY form of BoD to be heretical. Praeter here actually made the argument that I have elaborated upon before. Trent also teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary for salvation (for those who had lost their original state of grace), but clearly states that reception of the Sacrament in voto suffices, and this does not undermine the necessity. So the argument that Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation doesn't necessarily hold. I don't believe in BoD. I do not believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament (as St. Augustine teaches in his later days). But I do not denounce it as heretical either. What I call heretical is the notion that those outside the Church can be saved.
Recall the de Lugo citation posted by XavierSem. It CONTRADICTS almost word for word the teaching of the Council of Florence. How can there be any legitimate "development" of Catholic doctrine (I use the term in a Catholic and not Modernist sense) where it's suddenly OK to verbatim contradict a previous dogmatic definition ... by applying some "distinction". As valuable a tool as distinctions can be, they can also be badly misused by heretics seeking to undermine Catholic dogma. When you can apply a "distinction" to pretend that a dogma REALLY MEANS THE OPPOSITE of what it actually says, then the Modernists have won.
-
Trent also teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary for salvation (for those who had lost their original state of grace), but clearly states that reception of the Sacrament in votosuffices, and this does not undermine the necessity.
Well made point! If I commit a mortal sin the fear of going immediately to hell if not confessed would drive me crazy. To be offered the grace of being forgiven until I go to Confession is given conditionally. It is not sufficient in itself to remove the sin from my soul. If I subsequently distort the intention for which the grace was given and decide that it is sufficient in itself to remove the stain I would surely be in a state of sin that is not forgiven in this world or the next. My second state would be worse than my first.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.(Matt. 12: 32)
-
In today's Gospel, the owner of the vine, tells the labourers that he is free to pay whatever he wills to whomever. But in the same passage it is clearly underlined the importance for man to work for his pay.
These are two Truths are only apparently in contradiction (*) and they reinforce two concepts:
1. God can save anyone.
2. Man must do the right thing regardless.
(*) It is only an apparent contradiction that while God can save anyone, He still requires all to work for salvation.
I interpret (2) to mean that man must "work" for his baptism; i.e. he must have the explicit intention to be baptized. This, for me, excludes the "implicit" BoD interpretation.
I think that #1 is better stated to say that God saves all who are saved. He invites all into His Vineyard, which is the Church. All those who choose to enter into it and labor, will receive their reward as your #2 says. Whereas through a BOD, man saves himself.
-
In the meantime, this speculative theory only causes harm. It erodes people's believe in the necessity of Baptism. As Father Feeney put it, believing in Baptism of Desire actually would undermine one's ability to achieve this state, since instead of ardently desiring the Sacrament (which would be required), one becomes complacent that one might attain justification without the actual Sacrament.
Not only, it also causes harm to who is on his journey back into the Catholic Church.
If a reformist Catholic becomes aware of the conflict between reformist Catholics and Catholics, and discovers that some of the most preeminent areas of contention are ecuмenism and kingship, then BoD becomes a critical doctrine.
If Catholics concede to the doctrine of BoD, logically, this doctrine can be used as a powerful tool for reformist Catholics to argue that, then, the VII reforms are only expressions of a Catholic truth and VII only consolidates accepted Catholic doctrine. VII becomes a mere pastoral consequence of a theological truth.
To those like me who are walking home, this doctrine is really critical.
If accepted it instills doubt in our hearts and can make us waiver... I did. I asked God to enlighten me while I was walking to receive Holy Eucharist this Sunday and, I faltered. I faltered because I had been reading this thread and I feared that I was believing an error that placed me in a state of sin and, therefore, I could not communicate myself.
If Catholics concede ground in one of the principal areas of contention between Catholics and Reformist Catholics, then shy faithful who are doubtful and hesitant may draw the wrong conclusion that all this crisis is merely a lot of fuss about nothing: why would ecuмenism and diluted kingship be a problem, if BoD were to be a true doctrine? Ecuмenism and diluted kingship are a mere, tangible, expression of BoD.
... CUT ...
we must hold that non-Catholics and infidels can be inside the Church. This is in fact Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.
... CUT ...
But I see the fruits of this doctrine, and the fruits of Vatican II, a widescale massive RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM.
I agree. I was completely indifferent to doctrines, precepts, etc..
I am but a student and my knowledge of Catholic doctrine is weak and this is because I believed that I could and would be saved anyway even if I did not bother to adhere to Catholic precepts and doctrine. All I needed for salvation was true intent to love God, and all these petty, material, visible requirements of the Church were unnecessary. God did not need the bureaucracy and formalities of the Church because, in reality, God was only in my heart = BoD.
I was convinced that God would save me anyway as long as I worshiped him, and even if I worshipped him in my own way rather than how the Church taught. These anthropocentric teachings deny God's kingship and teach caritas before veritas. I remember, distinctly, a priest teaching from the pulpit that veritas before caritas hurts God. I remember being taught that God loves me even if I don't (True) and will save me even if I'm not a practicing Catholic (false). First of all there is no such thing as a practicing and non practicing Catholic but also a practicing Catholic may be damned if he dies in a state of mortal sin even if he is a perfectly good person but denies that, for example, Jesus is God, as a jew or muslim would.
In short, I was truly convinced that salvation did not require adhering to precepts and doctrines but merely required me to be a good person with honest love of God = BoD.
This is why I contend that denouncing BoD as false, especially to reformist Catholics, is crucial to the Catholic cause.
I think that #1 is better stated to say that God saves all who are saved. He invites all into His Vineyard, which is the Church. All those who choose to enter into it and labor, will receive their reward as your #2 says. Whereas through a BOD, man saves himself.
I agree that it is more accurate to say that God can save anyone, by bringing anyone into his vineyard. Thank you for correcting me. I need help to walk home along the right path.
-
I wonder what Claudel thinks of BoD...
-
I do not, and have not denied that sacramental confession is necessary to salvation, I gave you Trent's exact answer to your question - if you fail to understand it, then simply read Trent until it makes sense to you. Although I do understand your game because it is plain to see that you cannot answer my question without cutting your own throat, which is why you prefer to simply ignore my question and in the process, ignore your own contradiction.
FYI, Trent and all pre-V2 Council teachings are to be understood as decreed, per V1. Per V1, we are not even permitted to interpret them because to do so abandons the meaning of sacred dogma. Always remember that dogma is sacred, it is a sacred thing and changing it in any way is a desecration - which is why we may not interpret dogma.
Starting with V2, one is forced to interpret the docuмents due to the purposely ambiguous language they used. So simply read Trent without interpretation and for what it teaches, do that and you will have no need of this silly exercise in futility.
If this is the game you are going to play then we may as well end now, if however you choose to answer my question truthfully, then we can move onto the next and final step which will prove your contradiction, you will have no "out".
"From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism..."
All you need to read is the words I underlined.
You just committing the alleged crime of interpreting the dogmatic decree (as if everything that is written doesn't require interpretation). It clearly states that "anyone who denies that sacramental confession ... is necessary to salvation ... is anathema." You say you believe it in one breath, and the contradict yourself in the next by saying a person can be saved without sacramental confession.
According to your own reasoning you are anathema, since you are guilty of "interpreting" the dogmatic decree in light of what the Council says elsewhere.
I'm curious, what other teaching from the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pius X do you and the other Feeneyite heretics reject?
-
You just committing the alleged crime of interpreting the dogmatic decree (as if everything that is written doesn't require interpretation). It clearly states that "anyone who denies that sacramental confession ... is necessary to salvation ... is anathema." You say you believe it in one breath, and the contradict yourself in the next by saying a person can be saved without sacramental confession.
As I wrote before, the Sacrament of Confession is indeed necessary (for those who have fallen after Baptism), but the fact that it can be received in voto does not diminish or undermine its necessity. So, for instance, one cannot be justified by perfect contrition alone, but must also intend to confess the sins. I agree that the fact that Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary does not rule out the possibility of its being received in voto. It doesn't prove that it CAN, but it also doesn't prove that it cannot. I agree that this is a bad argument, and it's usually employed not by "Feeneyites" but, rather by Dimondites. But I agree with you that it's inconclusive regarding the BoD issue.
You'll note that after Trent's definition regarding the necessity of the Sacrament, the theologians were very careful to avoid saying that one can be saved "without" the Sacrament of Baptism, since that would in fact be objectively heretical. What they did was to say that people could potentially receive the Sacrament in voto (vs. in re). It's EXTREMELY important that people never have the temerity to contradict dogmatic definitions. So saying things like, "it is possible to be saved without the Sacrament," or phrases like "Baptism of Desire can be a substitute for Baptism." bzzzt ... those are heretical formulations. One should merely say that the Sacrament of Baptism can be received in voto, where the Sacrament remains the instrumental cause of justification operating through the votum.
-
You just committing the alleged crime of interpreting the dogmatic decree (as if everything that is written doesn't require interpretation). It clearly states that "anyone who denies that sacramental confession ... is necessary to salvation ... is anathema." You say you believe it in one breath, and the contradict yourself in the next by saying a person can be saved without sacramental confession.
According to your own reasoning you are anathema, since you are guilty of "interpreting" the dogmatic decree in light of what the Council says elsewhere.
I'm curious, what other teaching from the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pius XII do you and the other Feeneyite heretics reject?
Obviously you are not understanding what you read is all, because all I did was copy and paste a direct quote from the Council of Trent in answer to your question, so what you are actually saying is that Trent contradicts itself. Let that sink in.
And as expected, you still have not answered my question - which is a bit sad, but no surprise I guess.
-
Obviously you are not understanding what you read is all, because all I did was copy and paste a direct quote from the Council of Trent in answer to your question, so what you are actually saying is that Trent contradicts itself. Let that sink in.
And as expected, you still have not answered my question - which is a bit sad, but no surprise I guess.
In case you haven't figure it out, I don't have a problem with interpreting something in light of what the Council teaches elsewhere concerning the same topic. What I am pointing out is that you are contradicting your own method. If you interpret what the Council says about Baptism using the same method you do when interpreting what it says about confession, your interpretation will be in agreement with that of the Church herself.
-
Definition of interpret
transitive verb1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
So I think what Stubborn means is that the literal meaning of a dogma is not to be counted as an interpretation because it is already clearly stated and doesn't need any further interpretation. For example, EENS is very clear. Everyone understands the meaning of it. So that's why defenders of EENS get upset when they hear people say that you have to interpret it according to how the Church understands it. As if the Church's magisterium could teach a dogma that wasn't clear in its literal meaning (defeating the purpose of defining dogmas in the first place).
-
Definition of interpret
transitive verb1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
So I think what Stubborn means is that the literal meaning of a dogma is not to be counted as an interpretation because it is already clearly stated and doesn't need any further interpretation. For example, EENS is very clear. Everyone understands the meaning of it. So that's why defenders of EENS get upset when they hear people say that you have to interpret it according to how the Church understands it. As if the Church's magisterium could teach a dogma that wasn't clear in its literal meaning (defeating the purpose of defining dogmas in the first place).
Everyone understands the meaning of EENS except the Feeneyite heretics. Here's part of what the Holy Office wrote against the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, who, like his predecessor in heresy, relied on his private judgment to determine what he will and will not believe:
1949 Holy Office Letter against the Errors of Fr. Feeney: “Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
“Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
“The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
“However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
“These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
"Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
"Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).”
-
In case you haven't figure it out, I don't have a problem with interpreting something in light of what the Council teaches elsewhere concerning the same topic. What I am pointing out is that you are contradicting your own method. If you interpret what the Council says about Baptism using the same method you do when interpreting what it says about confession, your interpretation will be in agreement with that of the Church herself.
You are the one interpreting Trent, not I. If you have the faith, then you understand that the sacrament of penance is necessary for all who have sinned after baptism because that is the way the Church has always understood it. If you are part of the Church, then you understand it too - no interpretation is necessary.
You asked:
1) Do you agree that sacrament of confession is necessary to salvation, as the infallible decree teaches? If not, you are anathema. I answered that I agree.
2) Do you believe a person can be saved without sacramental confession (e.g., The Blessed Mother, baptized children who died before reaching the age of reason, etc.)? Here is where you need to understand it as the Church has always understood it. Our Blessed Mother never sinned = no need for confession. Before the age of reason = no need for confession. This is how the Church understands it,
3) If you answered yes to number two, I want to know "if you can see the contradiction that it is to the dogma as decreed at Trent"? There is no contradiction, you only think so because you are not understanding what Trent teaches and decrees as necessary for the different sacraments.
It is altogether futile to attempt to equate the teachings and the sacrament of penance with the sacrament of baptism.
Just remember that If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; let him be anathema. Perhaps repeat it over and over to yourself until you finally believe it.
-
Everyone understands the meaning of EENS except the Feeneyite heretics.
That is the biggest load of bovine excrement I have ever read on this forum. Who is "everyone"? You should be embarrassed by posting this.
-
Definition of interpret
transitive verb1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
So I think what Stubborn means is that the literal meaning of a dogma is not to be counted as an interpretation because it is already clearly stated and doesn't need any further interpretation. For example, EENS is very clear. Everyone understands the meaning of it. So that's why defenders of EENS get upset when they hear people say that you have to interpret it according to how the Church understands it. As if the Church's magisterium could teach a dogma that wasn't clear in its literal meaning (defeating the purpose of defining dogmas in the first place).
Thank you, this is the best description yet.
Note that whenever dogma is interpreted, it's meaning as declared is abandoned.
-
Everyone understands the meaning of EENS except the Feeneyite heretics. Here's part of what the Holy Office wrote against the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, who, like his predecessor in heresy, relied on his private judgment to determine what he will and will not believe:
1949 Holy Office Letter against the Errors of Fr. Feeney: “Now, among [...] “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
Isn't that something? Certainly Fr. Feeney was "united to her by longing and desire", so all is good! After all, it says there is hope for salvation outside of her since she is only "the general help to salvation". :facepalm:
Have you ever actually read the letter?
-
The other interesting characteristic of the EENS dogma is that it could only have 2 possible meanings (binary). Either it is literally true and there is no salvation outside the Church or its interpretation must prove that in fact there is salvation outside the Church and the literal meaning is false. But the literal meaning of a dogma can never be false. This is why defenders of the rewarder God theory must prove that non-Catholics are inside the Church before death. But then they run into the problem that anonymous-Christian theology is condemned by the pope.
-
And then there is the fact that the 1949 Holy Office letter is the only known condemnation of the strict (literal meaning) interpretation of EENS. But the literal meaning of EENS has never been condemned before that. It would be weird for the Church to condemn the literal meaning of Her own dogmas.
-
That is the biggest load of bovine excrement I have ever read on this forum. Who is "everyone"? You should be embarrassed by posting this.
Just to confirm, is this the same Ladislaus who thinks the Earth is flat?
-
And then there is the fact that the 1949 Holy Office letter is the only known condemnation of the strict (literal meaning) interpretation of EENS. But the literal meaning of EENS has never been condemned before that. It would be weird for the Church to condemn the literal meaning of Her own dogmas.
Very true, particularly when doing so would blatantly contradict The First Vatican Council's decree:
"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".
-
And then there is the fact that the 1949 Holy Office letter is the only known condemnation of the strict (literal meaning) interpretation of EENS. But the literal meaning of EENS has never been condemned before that. It would be weird for the Church to condemn the literal meaning of Her own dogmas.
That's because what you call the "strict (literal meaning)" if EENS, is neither. It is a false understanding of EENS that no one believed before the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, invented it. And as soon as he did, the Church reacted by condemning it.
-
Just to confirm, is this the same Ladislaus who thinks the Earth is flat?
Nice attempt at deflection by ad hominem.
By "everyone", do you include the Francis Bergoglio and St. John Paul II?
-
Very true, particularly when doing so would blatantly contradict The First Vatican Council's decree:
"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".
Indeed, that's why the Church reacted at once when the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, came out with his novel and false understanding of the dogma.
-
That's because what you call the "strict (literal meaning)" if EENS, is neither. It is a false understanding of EENS that no one believed before the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, invented it. And as soon as he did, the Church reacted by condemning it.
Garbage. Church Fathers all had a "strict" interpretation of EENS. So strict, that about a half dozen of them explicitly REJECTED Baptism of Desire.
Before we proceed any further, can people be saved without explicit knowledge of and belief in the Holy Trinity and incarnation?
To say YES would be the "strict" definition of EENS (as shared by all the Church Fathers, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, etc.)
To say NO would be allowing infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to be saved.
Most of you EENS laxists deliberately conflate the issue of Baptism of Desire with EENS as a smokescreen.
So, before we go any further, you need to define where you stand.
Do you believe that infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved?
-
If you're going to debate this issue, at least be honest and dispense with the nonsense.
I ... and most Feeneyites ... don't care about Baptism of Desire per se. EENS and Baptism of Desire are two separate issues. It's only because some heretics use Baptism of Desire in such a way as to undermine EENS. St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine did not do that.
If I said to you, "I believe in Baptism of Desire, but it's only for catechumens." ... would you classify that as heresy? Or is that an acceptable Catholic position?
-
St Thomas Aquinas, St Alphonsus Liguori, Fr. Michael Mueller and Fr. Feeney all held to the strict interpretation of EENS and they all believed that BOD was a thing (granted Fr. Feeney's conception of BOD was different from St Thomas and St Alphonsus). None of them were condemned except Fr. Feeney but even he was not excommunicated because of his teaching on EENS. He wasn't even excommunicated for his teaching on BOD. He was excommunicated because he didn't go to Rome when he was ordered to do so.
-
Indeed, that's why the Church reacted at once when the Lutheran heretic, Fr. Feeney, came out with his novel and false understanding of the dogma.
Novel and false understanding by quoting it. Remember that.
-
St Thomas Aquinas, St Alphonsus Liguori, Fr. Michael Mueller and Fr. Feeney all held to the strict interpretation of EENS and they all believed that BOD was a thing (granted Fr. Feeney's conception of BOD was different from St Thomas and St Alphonsus). None of them were condemned except Fr. Feeney but even he was not excommunicated because of his teaching on EENS. He wasn't even excommunicated for his teaching on BOD. He was excommunicated because he didn't go to Rome when he was ordered to do so.
Exactly. Before we get into ANY discussion of BoD, let's keep EENS completely separate. It's usually the EENS-laxists who deliberately conflate Baptism of Desire with a loose/lax interpretation of EENS. They do this so they can pretend that St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al. endorse their lax ecclesiology which allows all manner of infidels to be saved.
-
None of them were condemned except Fr. Feeney but even he was not excommunicated because of his teaching on EENS. He wasn't even excommunicated for his teaching on BOD. He was excommunicated because he didn't go to Rome when he was ordered to do so.
But it turned out to be no big deal because it is certain that Fr. Feeney was still united to the Church by desire and longing.
-
Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became your Pope Benedict XVI, wrote an official letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF of your Church), which officially permitted the strict interpretation of EENS. So does THAT make him a heretic?
Your Conciliar hierarchy which you profess to "recognize" and presumably obey, officially received Fr. Feeney back into the Church. If you don't accept that, who is being disobedient? You or Fr. Feeney (who said he would accept the decision of the pope if he ever defined BOD as a dogma)?
-
It's obvious that Ratzinger agreed with his mentor Karl Rahner (thanks for that amazing quote Ladislaus!) that the strict interpretation was the norm for the Church. It was the new theology which had to reinterpret it. Of course, I agree that the loose interpretation existed long before the new theology but it didn't gain much traction until the 20th century and the rise of the new theology.
-
Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became your Pope Benedict XVI, wrote an official letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF of your Church), which officially permitted the strict interpretation of EENS. So does THAT make him a heretic?
Your Conciliar hierarchy which you profess to "recognize" and presumably obey, officially received Fr. Feeney back into the Church. If you don't accept that, who is being disobedient? You or Fr. Feeney (who said he would accept the decision of the pope if he ever defined BOD as a dogma)?
Yes, ALL of the Church Fathers had a "strict" interpretation of EENS.
Honestly, I have had half a mind to say that I accept BoD for catechumens just to flush out the dishonesty when it comes to conflating BoD and EENS.
Vatican II errors are all 100% based on the "loose" interpretation of EENS. If I believed the "loose" interpretation of EENS, I would immediately drop any objection to Vatican II.
-
It's obvious that Ratzinger agreed with his mentor Karl Rahner (thanks for that amazing quote Ladislaus!) that the strict interpretation was the norm for the Church. It was the new theology which had to reinterpret it. Of course, I agree that the loose interpretation existed long before the new theology but it didn't gain much traction until the 20th century and the rise of the new theology.
Yes, it's a little known fact that Karl Rahner was attacked by the more liberal heretics (Hans Kung in particular) for his "Anonymous Christianity," because Rahner somehow felt that Christ needed to be part of the equation for salvation. Rahner held that Christ was still the instrumental cause of salvation, albeit operating secretly within each soul. Archbishop Lefebvre's soteriology, where people are saved BY the Church, even unaware of it themselves, is identical with the soteriology of Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity".
-
The reason I do not equate Archbishop Lefebvre, Praetor and XavierSem with the modernists is that they are clearly trying to hold to what they think the Church teaches. Whereas, the Ratzingers and Rahners are all very open about their resistance to what they know is the Church's traditional doctrine.
-
Yes, it's a little known fact that Karl Rahner was attacked by the more liberal heretics (Hans Kung in particular) for his "Anonymous Christianity," because Rahner somehow felt that Christ needed to be part of the equation for salvation. Rahner held that Christ was still the instrumental cause of salvation, albeit operating secretly within each soul. Archbishop Lefebvre's soteriology, where people are saved BY the Church, even unaware of it themselves, is identical with the soteriology of Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity".
Do you really put the Archbishop’s position in the same category as Rahner’s?
BTW: Lad, did you get my last message?
-
Do you really put the Archbishop’s position in the same category as Rahner’s?
Yes, absolutely. I think you have a kneejerk opposition to the statement just because of Rahner's reputatin. But Rahner's key point that even if one isn't IN the Church or aware of being in the Church, he is still saved BY Jesus Christ. He was actually criticized by Kung for saying that. This "not in, but by" thinking is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre articulated.
-
BTW: Lad, did you get my last message?
Yes, just saw it. I'll respond shortly. I had another message comes in, and the way the PM box looks I don't always notice what's new and what's older.
-
Yes, absolutely. I think you have a kneejerk opposition to the statement just because of Rahner's reputatin. But Rahner's key point that even if one isn't IN the Church or aware of being in the Church, he is still saved BY Jesus Christ. He was actually criticized by Kung for saying that. This "not in, but by" thinking is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre articulated.
Wow! That’s the first I’ve heard of that. It’s hard for me to believe that the dogma was stretched so much back then by those who were considered ultra conservatives. It does help explain however, how the “Feeneyite” “movement” devolved.
-
Wow! That’s the first I’ve heard of that. It’s hard for me to believe that the dogma was stretched so much back then by those who were considered ultra conservatives. It does help explain however, how the “Feeneyite” “movement” devolved.
If you look at the entire saga of Father Feeney vs. Cardinal Cushing, it's very interesting. Cardinal Cushing was reported by his biographer (who thought highly of him) as having said: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." I guess that this "Nobody" would include the Church, which defined/declared the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church several times. Father Feeney's initial crusade was just about EENS proper, and BoD only entered the conversation later.
-
Garbage. Church Fathers all had a "strict" interpretation of EENS. So strict, that about a half dozen of them explicitly REJECTED Baptism of Desire.
I'd like to know who coined the term, "strict interpretation" anyway. Was it +Cushing?
I found this interesting, it's from Fr. Michael Mueller's book, "The Catholic Dogma: Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur" 1875 (attached)
The book begins:
Preface. Necessary to be Read. [every dogma admits of no interpretation contrary to that which it has
received from the beginning.]......
....It must be remembered that every Catholic dogma is a revealed truth that has always been held by the Fathers
of the Church from the beginning and must, therefore, be interpreted, not according to modern opinions and
latitudinarian principles, but according to the faith of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church; and therefore
Vincent of Lerins says: "A true Catholic is he who loves the truth revealed by God, who loves the Church, the
Body of Christ, who esteems religion, the Catholic faith, higher than any human authority, talents, eloquence,
and philosophy; all this he holds in contempt, and remains firm and unshaken in the faith which, he knows, has
always from the beginning been held by the Catholic Church; and if he notices that any one, no matter
who he may be, interprets a dogma in a manner different from that of the Fathers of the Church,
he understands that God permits such an interpretation to be made, not for the good of religion,
but as a temptation, according to the words of St. Paul: ‘For there must be also heresies; that they
also, who are reproved, may be made manifest among you.’ (I Cor. xi. 19) ‘And indeed, no sooner are
novel opinions proclaimed, than it becomes manifest what kind of a Catholic a man is:’ (Commonit.) Hence, as
St. Augustine says, ‘a theologian who is humble, will never teach anything as true Catholic doctrine, unless he
is perfectly certain of the truth which he asserts, and proves it from Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.’
Those who have learned theology well,’ says St. Basil, will not allow one iota of Catholic dogmas to be betrayed.
They will, if necessary, willingly undergo any kind of death in their defence.’
"They will propose each dogma, especially the all-important dogma, "out of the Church there is No salvation," in
the words of the Church and explain it as she understands it; they are most careful not to weaken in the least the
meaning of this great dogma, by the way of proposing or explaining it. Why does not St. Paul say: if any one
preach to you a Gospel contrary to that instead of beside that which. we have preached to you? ‘It is,’ says St.
John Chrysostom, ‘to show us that one is accursed who even indirectly weakens the least truth of the Gospel.’
(Cornelius a Lapide in Epist. ad Gal. I. 8)"
-
I'd like to know who coined the term, "strict interpretation" anyway. Was it +Cushing?
Praeter used the term earlier in this thread, without defining it. So I asked him to define it, but he has not yet done so. One person's "strict" is another's "lax". It's a bit subjective.
-
Praeter used the term earlier in this thread, without defining it. So I asked him to define it, but he has not yet done so. One person's "strict" is another's "lax". It's a bit subjective.
I don't know about Cushing but Ratzinger used the "strict interpretation" term in his letter permitting that position. I don't know if he defined it but it was used in the context of the Saint Benedict Center controversy so I assume that he was allowing the SBC position to be held. I don't recall any reference to BOD in that letter. It was just in regard to EENS. So at the very least, the St Thomas Aquinas position (catechumens only) is permissible in the Conciliar Church.
-
I don't know about Cushing but Ratzinger used the "strict interpretation" term in his letter permitting that position. I don't know if he defined it but it was used in the context of the Saint Benedict Center controversy so I assume that he was allowing the SBC position to be held. I don't recall any reference to BOD in that letter. It was just in regard to EENS. So at the very least, the St Thomas Aquinas position (catechumens only) is permissible in the Conciliar Church.
Right, I defy any of the BoD proponents to denounce the catechumen-only position as wrong for a Catholic to hold.
1917 Code of Canon Law specifies catechumens only.
Church Fathers limited BoB to catechumens (only 1 or arguably 2 Church Fathers ever temporarily believed in BoD)
St. Thomas presumably limited it to catechumens, but at the very least to those with explicit faith.
St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly limited it to catechumens.
Context of Trent was with regard to those who had ALL the dispositions described for Baptism, aka, catechumens.
Roman Catechism was talking about catechumens (those being actively instructed in the faith)
-
The reason I do not equate Archbishop Lefebvre, Praetor and XavierSem with the modernists is that they are clearly trying to hold to what they think the Church teaches. Whereas, the Ratzingers and Rahners are all very open about their resistance to what they know is the Church's traditional doctrine.
Well, sure, that would be the FORMAL aspect. To me that part is difficult to judge, since it's more in the internal forum. While Ratzinger and Rahner do show SOME signs of caring about what the Church has historically taught, but they do not shy away from Modernist attitudes in many things.
-
Well, sure, that would be the FORMAL aspect. To me that part is difficult to judge, since it's more in the internal forum. While Ratzinger and Rahner do show SOME signs of caring about what the Church has historically taught, but they do not shy away from Modernist attitudes in many things.
Agreed about the difficulty in making judgements about these things but bishops and priests do have to make these judgements. They make these judgements in the internal forum. That's what confession is. It is a judgement in the internal forum. See Boscaren and Ellis for example. They specifically identify confession as the internal forum. As laymen we have to be very careful about making rash judgements but never the less we do make these judgements too. The crisis makes these judgements all the more difficult. Prior to Vatican 2 we could defer any judgement to the local priest or bishop. But now we effectively have no ordinaries (for sedes there are no ordinaries, for R&R there are no ordinaries that they are willing to obey). My approach is to assume that all traditionalists are trying to please God and that all Novus Ordo people are trying to please themselves. I know that there are some Novus Ordo people that are sincerely trying to please God but they have to prove it before I will believe it (not that I require a great deal of proof). Whereas for traditionalists, they have to do something evil before I will believe that they are bad willed. Being wrong about some theological issue isn't enough evidence for me to judge they are bad willed. I would need evidence that they don't care what the Church teaches.
-
Agreed about the difficulty in making judgements about these things but bishops and priests do have to make these judgements. They make these judgements in the internal forum. That's what confession is. It is a judgement in the internal forum. See Boscaren and Ellis for example. They specifically identify confession as the internal forum. As laymen we have to be very careful about making rash judgements but never the less we do make these judgements too. The crisis makes these judgements all the more difficult. Prior to Vatican 2 we could defer any judgement to the local priest or bishop. But now we effectively have no ordinaries (for sedes there are no ordinaries, for R&R there are no ordinaries that they are willing to obey). My approach is to assume that all traditionalists are trying to please God and that all Novus Ordo people are trying to please themselves. I know that there are some Novus Ordo people that are sincerely trying to please God but they have to prove it before I will believe it (not that I require a great deal of proof). Whereas for traditionalists, they have to do something evil before I will believe that they are bad willed. Being wrong about some theological issue isn't enough evidence for me to judge they are bad willed. I would need evidence that they don't care what the Church teaches.
Right. With Traditional Catholics, we can safely presume their intention to be subject to Church teaching (although some outlying R&R types might not be). Even in the Novus Ordo, you can usually spot within 5 minutes the person who professes the true faith and has a spirit of subjection to Church teaching. There are many in the Novus Ordo who are in material error only, who mistakenly think that the Church taught x, y, or z.
-
Agreed about the difficulty in making judgements about these things but bishops and priests do have to make these judgements. They make these judgements in the internal forum. That's what confession is. It is a judgement in the internal forum. See Boscaren and Ellis for example. They specifically identify confession as the internal forum. As laymen we have to be very careful about making rash judgements but never the less we do make these judgements too. The crisis makes these judgements all the more difficult. Prior to Vatican 2 we could defer any judgement to the local priest or bishop. But now we effectively have no ordinaries (for sedes there are no ordinaries, for R&R there are no ordinaries that they are willing to obey). My approach is to assume that all traditionalists are trying to please God and that all Novus Ordo people are trying to please themselves. I know that there are some Novus Ordo people that are sincerely trying to please God but they have to prove it before I will believe it (not that I require a great deal of proof). Whereas for traditionalists, they have to do something evil before I will believe that they are bad willed. Being wrong about some theological issue isn't enough evidence for me to judge they are bad willed. I would need evidence that they don't care what the Church teaches.
I don't know precisely how you define "novus ordo" but at the minimum I think you need to have a more charitable bar for those who have converted from Protestantism (I know a lot of people who have done so.) They may not be perfect, but I've never met somebody who converted from Protestantism for any reason other than to please God. Whereas when it comes to cradle Catholics, yeah that's gonna be more common
-
...My approach is to assume that all traditionalists are trying to please God and that all Novus Ordo people are trying to please themselves. I know that there are some Novus Ordo people that are sincerely trying to please God but they have to prove it before I will believe it (not that I require a great deal of proof). Whereas for traditionalists, they have to do something evil before I will believe that they are bad willed. Being wrong about some theological issue isn't enough evidence for me to judge they are bad willed. I would need evidence that they don't care what the Church teaches.
It doesn't always work, but I try to deal with them with this attitude also, that they are sincere but only mistaken....and will not be convinced that they are mistaken.
The thing that gets me is that for those who've read "The Letter" and believe what it says is a teaching of the Church, re: “... Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing". If in fact it really was a teaching of the Church, then it makes the whole idea of excommunications and even lesser censures completely worthless.
Surely it is indisputable that Fr. Feeney desired and longed to be united to the Church, even after the sham excommunication. "The Letter" is not worth the paper it's printed upon - yet most people, even people who should know better like the hierarchy and nearly all priests for over the last 70 years are totally blind to it.
-
It doesn't always work, but I try to deal with them with this attitude also, that they are sincere but only mistaken....and will not be convinced that they are mistaken.
The thing that gets me is that for those who've read "The Letter" and believe what it says is a teaching of the Church, re: “... Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing". If in fact it really was a teaching of the Church, then it makes the whole idea of excommunications and even lesser censures completely worthless.
Surely it is indisputable that Fr. Feeney desired and longed to be united to the Church, even after the sham excommunication. "The Letter" is not worth the paper it's printed upon - yet most people, even people who should know better like the hierarchy and nearly all priests for over the last 70 years are totally blind to it.
Well sometimes people may have a surface level desire to do the right thing, but really deep down they are only looking out for themselves. God can judge in the end. You don't believe an excommunication is an automatic sentence to Hell either. Joan of Arc was canonized under the pre Vatican II regime so I assume you'd consider her canonization valid, yet she died under excommunication. And you aren't a Sede, so you'd certainly take the approach that Archbishop Lefebvre was, despite an excommunication from the Pope, not automatically damned. I mean, you have this problem too.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for my own part, I see no reason to assume that Feeney was damned. Obviously only God knows for sure, but I don't see any evidence or proof that he was of bad will. I do realize that some people only have any tolerance for their left, but none to their right, and that never made much sense to me.
-
Well sometimes people may have a surface level desire to do the right thing, but really deep down they are only looking out for themselves. God can judge in the end. You don't believe an excommunication is an automatic sentence to Hell either. Joan of Arc was canonized under the pre Vatican II regime so I assume you'd consider her canonization valid, yet she died under excommunication. And you aren't a Sede, so you'd certainly take the approach that Archbishop Lefebvre was, despite an excommunication from the Pope, not automatically damned. I mean, you have this problem too.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for my own part, I see no reason to assume that Feeney was damned. Obviously only God knows for sure, but I don't see any evidence or proof that he was of bad will. I do realize that some people only have any tolerance for their left, but none to their right, and that never made much sense to me.
In the worst case scenario, Paul VI was not a true pope and the bishops who reconciled Fr. Feeney to the Church were not Catholic bishops. But Fr. Feeney believed them to be Catholic bishops who had jurisdiction over his case. So in the worst case scenario this is a classic case of supplied jurisdiction. Fr. Feeney was in fact received back into the Church even by sede standards. The only ones who would argue with that would be those who believe that he was excommunicated for heresy (not true) and that he never retracted anything (true).
-
Well sometimes people may have a surface level desire to do the right thing, but really deep down they are only looking out for themselves. God can judge in the end. You don't believe an excommunication is an automatic sentence to Hell either. Joan of Arc was canonized under the pre Vatican II regime so I assume you'd consider her canonization valid, yet she died under excommunication. And you aren't a Sede, so you'd certainly take the approach that Archbishop Lefebvre was, despite an excommunication from the Pope, not automatically damned. I mean, you have this problem too.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for my own part, I see no reason to assume that Feeney was damned. Obviously only God knows for sure, but I don't see any evidence or proof that he was of bad will. I do realize that some people only have any tolerance for their left, but none to their right, and that never made much sense to me.
The thing is, people, including trad priests, quote that letter as proof that Fr. Feeney was an excommunicated heretic as they point to that letter to show "how the Church understands the dogma, Outside the Church there is no salvation", namely, that salvation for those outside the Church is assured via a desire and longing to be within the Church while one is outside the Church. To them, *this* is the dogma.
So Fr. Feeney gets excommunicated, or Biden or Peℓσѕι or whomever, meanwhile they all still desire and long to be Catholic - just ask any of them and they will assure you of this. What good came from them being excommunicated when the whole time they desire to remain within the Church? IOW, per how "the Church understands the dogma," their desire and longing renders any excommunication, instantly and automatically invalid, per what they wrongfully promote as the Church's own teaching.
-
Xavier,
Thanks for providing the quotes, particularly for the Sylvius quote in a prior post.
Fr. Hunter writes:
I believe that view is defensible (though "now held by no one") and supported by Scripture: the most obvious example is Our Lord saying father Abraham, the father of those who believe, saw His day and was glad (John 8:56), and I believe almost every prophet and OT saint who wrote Scripture (e.g., Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) referred to Christ in their writings, so arguably had some explicit knowledge of Him, though God kept it under wraps from general consumption until the "fullness of time."
So I'm curious: are you aware of any Magisterial statements indicating that explicit belief in Christ was not required at some time prior to the explicit promulgation of the gospel by the apostles?
Thanks,
DR
Hi Decem. Thanks for your question. Yes, there are actually 3 opinions, not just 2. And these are mentioned by Cardinal De Lugo in, On the Virtue of Divine Faith, as follows. (1) Explicit Faith is required for final salvation (final perseverance), but not for First Justification (Act of Contrition). (2) Explicit faith is required both for the receiving of the Grace of Justification, and for the receiving of the Grace of Final Perseverance. (3) Explicit faith is not required either for the reception of the Grace of Justification, nor for Final Perseverance and Full Salvation, option 3. The view you are talking about, "now held by no one", would be closest to (2) above.
Interestingly, Cardinal John De Lugo enlists Dominigo Banez as supporting (1). Fr. Banez was confessor to St. Theresa, a proponent of Thomism who said, and his peers regarded, as never having wavered from St. Thomas; and Fr. Banez also was the one who asked the Holy Office to investigate Molinism. After the review passed, the Holy See, in consultation with St. Francis De Sales and others, decided both would be allowed till the question was studied further. After a careful study, I think it is clear St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, with Fr. Banez, held to (1), as do I.
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, a Thomistic Theologian, teaches: "First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution ... Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, 15 can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace. 17"
Elsewhere, Father comments on a passage in the Summa already cited, where St. Thomas appears to teach every child coming to the Age of Reason is given Sufficient Grace to make an Act of Contrition at the time: ". When man begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, through not doing that which is in his power to do.168" This is also cited here: https://www.olrl.org/misc/Feeneyism.pdf (https://www.olrl.org/misc/Feeneyism.pdf)
These are Fr. G-L's words on the subject: "A difficult problem: On the justification of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things. St. Thomas writes, Ia Hae, q. 89, a. 6: "When a child begins to have the use of reason, he should order his acts toward a proper end, to the extent that he is capable of discretion at that age." And again in the answer to the third objection: "The end is first in the intention. Hence this is the time when the child is obliged by the affirmative command : 'Turn ye to Me ... .' But if the child does this, he obtains the remission of original sin." It is an excellent form of baptism of desire. St. Thomas and Thomists reconcile this doctrine with the legitimate interpretation of the axiom : "To one who does what in him lies (with the help of actual grace), God does not deny habitual grace," and in the present case God does not deny what is necessary for justification, that is, the supernatural presentation of the truths of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, at least that God "is, and is a rewarder" in the order of grace. However, since this thesis is extremely difficult and very complex, demanding the refutation of numerous objections, it will be well to offer here a recapitulation of its proof while at the same time solving the principal difficulties. (Cf. especially on this subject John of St. Thomas, De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a. 3, nos. 40-41, and the thesis of Father Paul Angelo, O.P., La possibtlita di salute nd primo atto morale per il fan ciullo mfedele, Rome, the Angelicuм, 1946.)"
Father's also written, “Second part of the third opinion. John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached. This, however, is per accidens. It’s ‘an exception that proves the rule.’ For this reason the rule is couched in a manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: ‘After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel.’ …An infidel swelling among Mohammedans, for instance, and habitually doing what his conscience judges to be right, may have no better help than an interior inspiration to keep good. He may have no knowledge whatever of revelation strictly so called, nor of an immediate intervention bordering on the miraculous. He simply follows along that traces of a lost revelation that still survive, and trusts in a God ‘who is, and who rewards.’ Implicitly the infidel would be making room for faith in Christ. …We may join with the Salmanticenses (De Fide, n. 79) and Suarez in maintaining that ‘it is possible for a catechumen to have had nothing proposed to him for belief but God, the supernatural author and end of man. No explicit knowledge of Christ the Lord has reached his ears. Nevertheless, the catechumen conceives a definite faith in God as his supernatural author and supernatural end, not believing explicitly in Christ of whom he has never heard. For the fact that his new faith is firm in God as supernatural beginning and end, he is capable of loving God through charity, and therefore may be justified. Therefore, under the New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having explicit faith in Christ.’” We've seen St. Thomas teach later enlightenment also.
So, my view is (1). As for a Magisterial text, is the Council of Orange sufficient? It speaks of Cornelius having not merely a natural belief, but a Gift of God's Grace, on account of which the Angel of the Lord was sent to him: "of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness." https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/orange.txt (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/orange.txt) We've seen St. Thomas say earlier that Cornelius had implicit faith.
In Jesus and Mary,
Xavier.
-
"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it - while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so". - Who Shall Ascend?
A perfect example of this truism is demonstrated below. What he says about the infants is true as he begins by affirming the dogma, from then on he denies it.
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, a Thomistic Theologian, teaches: "First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution ... Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, 15 can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace. 17"
-
When you say that Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and schismatics CAN be saved ... as de Lugo did, as La Grange did, you are denying WORD FOR WORD the dogmatic definition of the Council of Florence. This is heretical. And, moreover, if you claim that these can be saved, since there's no salvation outside the Church, you must assert that these Protestants, schismatics, Jews, Mohammedans, and Protestants are INSIDE the Church. Therefore, you are a schismatic for rejecting Vatican II (although I know that XavierSem does not reject Vatican II, so he's schismatic for adhering to the SSPX when he should be in a motu group). It's really that simple, folks. If you believe that all these non-Catholics can be saved and therefore can be in the Church, you need to hang up you schismatic Traditional Catholicism and return at once to the Conciliar Church.
-
This is the very definition of Modernism:
You take a Catholic definition of dogma, apply some distinction and tortured logic, stir it all up, and then proclaim that the Church believes nearly the exact OPPOSITE of what the dogma actually taught.
For 1600 years, the entire Church taught and believed that there could be no salvation without knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
Shortly before 1600, a handful of Jesuits, responding to the discovery of the New World, and echoing Fr. Cekada's sentiments that they could simply not believe that all those people had been lost (so doing emotion-based "theology") ... invented "Rewarder God" theory.
deLugo, also a Jesuit, picked up on this.
XavierSem cited deLugo as teaching: "... Turks and ... Moslems, as well as the Jews, ... [and] most heretics ... can be saved."
This is a word-for-word denial of the solemn dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence: "[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that ... pagans, ... Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock."
How were they able to overturn Catholic dogma and profess the opposite?
St. Alphonsus explains that it was by applying a "distinction". St. Alphonsus notes that "all the Scriptures and Church Fathers" clearly teach the necessity of explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation. But these Jesuit Modernist-heretic innovators claimed that this "necessity" was but a necessity of "precept" and not a necessity of means. So, until the Church explicitly condemned this distinction, they could escape the charge of heresy ... despite being able to use this distinction to word-for-word deny EENS dogma ... as deLugo did.
Evidently, however, and tragically, St. Alphonsus was unaware that the Holy Office in 1703 had condemned the "necessity of precept" distinction as applied to this issue and maintained that explicit knowledge of the central mysteries of the faith were necessary by a "necessity of means" for salvation. So much so that EVEN IN DANGER OF DEATH, Baptism was not permitted without this knowledge. Now the Church has always made concessions for "danger of death" scenarios, where, for instance, doubtful measures can be taken if they're all that are possible ... doubtful Sacraments may in that case and only in that case be received. So by making this statement, the Holy Office was saying "not a chance," this opinion is NOT "probable" as St. Alphonsus declared later, ignorant of this decree from the Holy Office.
When we take that distinction off the table, and as Catholics we MUST, since it was rejected by the Holy Office, and that decision never overturned, we MUST REGARD Rewarder God theory to be heretical, since without said distinction it contradicts "all the Scriptures and Church Fathers".
Here's the Holy Office Decree: "Question: Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to the remark of the Apostle ... from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case or urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ. Response: A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized."
So, after about 100 years of churn on the "Rewarder God" theory, despite the Holy Office condemnation, we have people like deLugo using this distinction to word-for-word contradict Catholic dogma.
THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MODERNISM ... to take tortured logic and false distinctions to cause the meanings of Catholic dogma to change, even to the point of claiming that they mean the very opposite of what they actually say.
If Catholics may do this to EENS dogma, then why couldn't Pius IX's condemnation of Religious Liberty really NOT apply to what Vatican II taught? After all, if you can go from saying that infidels cannot be saved to saying that infidels CAN be saved, what Catholic dogma is safe?
In addition, this heresy that non-Catholics can be saved is at the very heart of EVERY SINGLE VATICAN II "ERROR". Catholics who believe that non-Catholics can be save don't have a leg to stand on in rejecting Vatican II, and so are basically in objective schism. If non-Catholics can be saved, then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, it necessarily follows that non-Catholics can be in the Church, so Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology is right on the money.
-
When you say that Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and schismatics CAN be saved ... as de Lugo did, as La Grange did, you are denying WORD FOR WORD the dogmatic definition of the Council of Florence. This is heretical. And, moreover, if you claim that these can be saved, since there's no salvation outside the Church, you must assert that these Protestants, schismatics, Jews, Mohammedans, and Protestants are INSIDE the Church. Therefore, you are a schismatic for rejecting Vatican II (although I know that XavierSem does not reject Vatican II, so he's schismatic for adhering to the SSPX when he should be in a motu group). It's really that simple, folks. If you believe that all these non-Catholics can be saved and therefore can be in the Church, you need to hang up you schismatic Traditional Catholicism and return at once to the Conciliar Church.
I'm in the Eastern Rite, so this whole argument (about the conciliar church) doesn't apply to me.
I'm also probably less "dead set" on certain positions than most people here.
But I believe what Lefebvre did was necessary for two reasons.
1: Vatican II is at a MINIMUM problematic (even if it can be reconciled through hoop jumping, of which I am uncertain) on the issues of ecuмenism and religious liberty, which are logically separate issues from how we interpret EENS. Now I know that you argue that anything less than a Feeneyite interpretation of EENS logically leads to Vatican II on those other points, but that was not obvious to Archbishop Lefebvre, nor is it obvious to those of us here who disagree with you. And honestly while I find Salza and Siscoe more convincing on the new ordinations, for those here who don't, that's logically separate as well.
2: The preservation of the Latin Mass over and against the Novus Ordo was itself a sufficient reason IMO.
-
//When we take that distinction off the table, and as Catholics we MUST, since it was rejected by the Holy Office, and that decision never overturned//
TBH I'm a little bit confused here.
If I lived in 1703, and the facts were as you say, yeah, my reaction would be "well, I guess I was wrong about that, the Holy Office knows better than me, I'm gonna submit to the Holy Office."
Of course, I don't think (and you seem to be conceding this) that the decision was actually infallible, just that its an issue of authority and submission.
Here's my issue I guess, we're not living in 1703. We're living in a time where all the clergy, both traditionalist and modernist, take the more "liberal" view on this (there might be one or two exceptions, but you know what I mean.) I'm seriously doubtful that there's a single bishop, anywhere in the world, who takes the strictest view here.
So like... maybe we're wrong (or maybe the Holy Office was wrong in 1703) but it seems like submission to authority at least leans toward the opposite conclusion, currently, than it would have in 1703.
-
Vatican II errors are all 100% based on the "loose" interpretation of EENS. If I believed the "loose" interpretation of EENS, I would immediately drop any objection to Vatican II.
This is also my perspective as someone who recently returned to the Faith. What exposed VII errors for me, was the lax interpretation of EENS and the BoD doctrine. If these are correct, then VII merely reflects them and embraces them. If they are an error, then VII is in error. If they are correct, then VII is correct.
The EENS dogma is like a beacon of truth that calls us all back to the Faith and sheds the water between dogma and interpretation. It is like a telltale and revealing test for the faithful.
It is so simple, so pure, so evident and even so logical: why would God create His Church if those outside it could then enter it without even knowing of it or desiring to enter it. By the so called "implicit" desire... quite a stretch to justify ecuмenism, inter faith religious dialogue and relativism in general. Implicit desire seems like a theory concocted by Frankfurt School to dilute the Truth.
Look, we all recognize that God is omnipotent and that He can save anyone... But is it not somewhat arrogant to presume that one (*) can understand how God uses His almighty powers to save souls who are not in His Church, and then go as far as devising a teaching that explains it?
(*) I include Popes and Church leaders.
-
Garbage. Church Fathers all had a "strict" interpretation of EENS. So strict, that about a half dozen of them explicitly REJECTED Baptism of Desire.
Before we proceed any further, can people be saved without explicit knowledge of and belief in the Holy Trinity and incarnation?
To say YES would be the "strict" definition of EENS (as shared by all the Church Fathers, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, etc.)
To say NO would be allowing infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to be saved.
Most of you EENS laxists deliberately conflate the issue of Baptism of Desire with EENS as a smokescreen.
So, before we go any further, you need to define where you stand.
Do you believe that infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved?
We should probably *also* distinguish between the infidels (as mentioned above) and broadly speaking "Christian heretics" like Protestants, EOs, etc.
There are really three different things usually going on in the EENS/BOD debates here.
1: BOD/BOB for Catechumens. Some people here (you included) do disagree with this idea, but if its limited to this, nobody here seems terribly concerned with it. Nevertheless it is one facet of the issue. This is NOT an EENS issue, IMO.
2: BOD/BOB for those who appear to be infidels. I used the phrasing of "appears to be" deliberately for precision. This would be an issue of BOD/BOB AND an EENS issue.
3. Salvation for those who appear to be Christian heretics (Protestants, EOs, far eastern Christians, whatever.) Although this is an EENS issue, it is NOT an issue of BOB/BOD. I don't see how it could be, someone who is already validly water baptized wouldn't fall under BOD/BOB. The comparatively lax position here (if one did decide to take it) would come down to a more charitable assessment of certain people being only material heretics (or at least allowing the possibility thereof), not BOD or BOB.
-
1: Vatican II is at a MINIMUM problematic (even if it can be reconciled through hoop jumping, of which I am uncertain) on the issues of ecuмenism and religious liberty, which are logically separate issues from how we interpret EENS.
No, these most certainly are NOT separate issues.
First of all, there's no strict definition of what "Ecuмenism" means, but it's rooted in the notion that people in other religions are our "separated brethren," and that becoming a Catholic is not some binary conversion experience, but a moving closer to the "fullness of truth." That's how I understand Ecuмenism. Well, if we have heretics and infidels who are in the Church, they are our brethren, in so far as they are fellow Catholics, but they are materially separated because they don't have the fullness of truth. So unity is already there, formally, but material separations remain, and Ecuмenism tries to bring people closer.
Religious Liberty: If people save their souls and please God by sincerely following their (even-erroneous) consciences, well, people have a right to please God and save their souls. ergo: People have a right to follow their (even-erroneous) consciences.
Q.E.D.
-
This is also my perspective as someone who recently returned to the Faith. What exposed VII errors for me, was the lax interpretation of EENS and the BoD doctrine. If these are correct, then VII merely reflects them and embraces them. If they are an error, then VII is in error. If they are correct, then VII is correct.
The EENS dogma is like a beacon of truth that calls us all back to the Faith and sheds the water between dogma and interpretation. It is like a telltale and revealing test for the faithful.
It is so simple, so pure, so evident and even so logical: why would God create His Church if those outside it could then enter it without even knowing of it or desiring to enter it. By the so called "implicit" desire... quite a stretch to justify ecuмenism, inter faith religious dialogue and relativism in general. Implicit desire seems like a theory concocted by Frankfurt School to dilute the Truth.
Look, we all recognize that God is omnipotent and that He can save anyone... But is it not somewhat arrogant to presume that one (*) can understand how God uses His almighty powers to save souls who are not in His Church, and then go as far as devising a teaching that explains it?
(*) I include Popes and Church leaders.
ascanio, for someone who recently returned to the Faith, you are seeing everything very clearly. I am perplexed at why so many Traditional Catholics just DO NOT SEE these things that appear all-too-obvious to me. If someone were to convince me that the lax interpretation of EENS is in fact Catholic, then I'm completely done with Traditional Catholicism. I see zero reason to reject Vatican II. But we see its fruits, the rampant religious indifferentism and relativism and loss of faith. Also, when we have people claiming that Catholic teaching is in fact word-for-word the OPPOSITE of what the Church has dogmatically defined, it renders all dogmatic definitions meaningless and to be so much relativistic nonsense. In other words, the Modernists were right all along. As you point out, lax EENS-ism renders the Church to be almost meaningless, Church dogma to be almost meaningless ... as everything reduces to your sincerity in seeking the truth.
-
ascanio, for someone who recently returned to the Faith, you are seeing everything very clearly. I am perplexed at why so many Traditional Catholics just DO NOT SEE these things that appear all-too-obvious to me. If someone were to convince me that the lax interpretation of EENS is in fact Catholic, then I'm completely done with Traditional Catholicism. I see zero reason to reject Vatican II. But we see its fruits, the rampant religious indifferentism and relativism and loss of faith. Also, when we have people claiming that Catholic teaching is in fact word-for-word the OPPOSITE of what the Church has dogmatically defined, it renders all dogmatic definitions meaningless and to be so much relativistic nonsense. In other words, the Modernists were right all along. As you point out, lax EENS-ism renders the Church to be almost meaningless, Church dogma to be almost meaningless ... as everything reduces to your sincerity in seeking the truth.
Novices like me can benefit from a simple rule to saves our souls: when in doubt, stick to dogma and don't be arrogant trying to interpret it.
If God had wanted the simple EENS Truth to be interpreted differently, then the Holy Spirit would have inspired our Holy Father with an appropriate ex-cathedra teaching.
End of story.
-
2: The preservation of the Latin Mass over and against the Novus Ordo was itself a sufficient reason IMO.
I wonder if it was a sufficient reason...
N.O. liturgy is but a public expression of an erroneous doctrine, as a fever is but the symptom of an illness. If I cure the fever but not the illness, I have accomplished little. If I reinstate the Latin Mass, without eradicating religious liberty, ecuмenism, relativism, kingship dilution, pluralism, etc., I am not sure that we will have won Mons Lefevbre's war, but only a battle.
This is why eradicating EENS's false interpretations is key to restoring the Church's purpose: saving souls.
If we cure only the symptoms of VII and not its causes (as EENS false interpretations), we will not cure the Church of its governance's errors and souls will be led straight to hell.
This is also the reason why I stopped attending ICRSS Latin Mass: I was merely signalling virtue without having the courage to address the cause. I was being a hypocrite. What's the point of attending a Latin Mass where the celebrant embraces the errors that want that liturgy abolished in the first place?
-
Novices like me can benefit from a simple rule to saves our souls: when in doubt, stick to dogma and don't be arrogant trying to interpret it.
If God had wanted the simple EENS Truth to be interpreted differently, then the Holy Spirit would have inspired our Holy Father with an appropriate ex-cathedra teaching.
End of story.
Agreed. When a simple lay Catholic would sit down and read a dogmatic definition that Jews, heretics, schismatics, pagans, etc. cannot be saved, does the Church really expect him to read a 10-page explanation of how that doesn't actually mean that, but really translates into the OPPOSITE?
-
No, these most certainly are NOT separate issues.
First of all, there's no strict definition of what "Ecuмenism" means, but it's rooted in the notion that people in other religions are our "separated brethren," and that becoming a Catholic is not some binary conversion experience, but a moving closer to the "fullness of truth." That's how I understand Ecuмenism. Well, if we have heretics and infidels who are in the Church, they are our brethren, in so far as they are fellow Catholics, but they are materially separated because they don't have the fullness of truth. So unity is already there, formally, but material separations remain, and Ecuмenism tries to bring people closer.
Religious Liberty: If people save their souls and please God by sincerely following their (even-erroneous) consciences, well, people have a right to please God and save their souls. ergo: People have a right to follow their (even-erroneous) consciences.
Q.E.D.
I see your point with lacking a concrete definition on ecuмenism. But what I’m getting at is the presumption that just because some individual Protestants might subjectively be in a state of grace that theeefore we can worship alongside them etc.
I’m confused as to how you think trad clergy are so dumb as to just be missing the obvious. I know that’s technically a strawman but I don’t get how your views reduce to a different conclusion than that
-
I apologize to the moderator if I am a little OT...
Postmodern ideas originate from the "critical theory" of the Frankfurt School. The (so called) philosophers of that marxist gathering stipulated that to destroy a culture one had to merely infiltrate its core beliefs with reasonable expounding and elucidations that, in turn, could be generated by apparently legitimate, even virtuous, interpretation of the underlying values.
To me it seems that this EENS debate is a reflection of this devilish theory.
EENS dogma has been infiltrated with reasonable expounding and elucidations that, in turn, seem generated by apparently legitimate, even virtuous, interpretation of the underlying values.
BoD and implicit desire all seem very virtuous, even charitable, but I wonder if we should not recognize the beauty and fascination with which the Devil works...
-
I'm in the Eastern Rite, so this whole argument (about the conciliar church) doesn't apply to me.
I am interested to learn about your Eastern Rite.
Kindly, would you invest a little time to point me to a couple of succinct (under 30 minutes) videos that explain your Rite, in of its own and that explain its origins and the differences with the Catholic rite of Rome? I would very much appreciate them.
-
I haven't read past reply 57, so this may have been dealt with but...
Praeter writes there
The post Vatican II theology of some is that you have to be a formal card-carrying Catholic to be saved. Ironically, this post-Conciliar error is usually held by those who themselves are outside the Church, such as the Dimond Brothers and other sedevacantists or sedeprivationists. And they can't claim invincible ignorance.
Isn't dogmatic anti-sedevacantism disallowed here?
-
I am interested to learn about your Eastern Rite.
Kindly, would you invest a little time to point me to a couple of succinct (under 30 minutes) videos that explain your Rite, in of its own and that explain its origins and the differences with the Catholic rite of Rome? I would very much appreciate them.
I’ll try to do some research. I’m Ukrainian rite btw
-
I haven't read past reply 57, so this may have been dealt with but...
Praeter writes there
Isn't dogmatic anti-sedevacantism disallowed here?
Nadir, you must be joking. Dogmatic anti-sedevacantism has always been allowed here. Only Dogmatic Sedevacantism is not.
-
Ah! I expressed myself badly. I should have pointed out that Praeter has said that
"the Dimond Brothers and other sedevacantists or sedeprivationists....themselves are outside the Church".
Is it allowed to declare such things here?
-
Ah! I expressed myself badly. I should have pointed out that Praeter has said that
"the Dimond Brothers and other sedevacantists or sedeprivationists....themselves are outside the Church".
Is it allowed to declare such things here?
Well, no, it shouldn't be. You see, declaring people with opposing theological viewpoints to be outside the Church is PRECISELY the problem with dogmatic sedevacantism; it's what leads to a schismatic attitude. It's perfectly OK to claim that a certain opinion is heretical or schismatic, objectively speaking, but to declare people outside the Church on your own authority itself entails a schismatic attitude. AT WORST, the sedevacantists are wrong in their application of principles taught by St. Robert Bellarmine to this crisis. That would be an error, a mistake. But, then, given the enormity of this particular crisis, I think that many people of good will who have the faith are susceptible to making mistakes.
This is precisely the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre toward sedevacantism:
The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.
Sedevacantists are merely Catholics who "rely... on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope". AT WORST, they make a mistake in applying these statements to the crisis. But +Lefebvre even goes so far as to say, effectively, "and they may in fact be right." These dogmatic sedeplenists or dogmatic R&R have no ally in Archbishop Lefebvre himself.
-
AT WORST, they make a mistake in applying these statements to the crisis.
This is what they hope is the worst anyway, but most actually believe that this would be the best case scenario.
-
This is what they hope is the worst anyway, but most actually believe that this would be the best case scenario.
No, best case from their perspective is obviously that they're actually right. +Lefebvre repeatedly stated that they could in fact be right. I love it how so many self-proclaimed followers of +Lefebvre are dogmatic anti-sedevacantists when +Lefebvre was most certainly not; then they get upset at the suggestion that +Lefebvre was not dogmatic R&R, claim that the sedevacantists are lying when they produce verifiable quotations straight from The Angelus website, and throw tantrums in the face of indisputable proof.
-
Ah! I expressed myself badly. I should have pointed out that Praeter has said that
"the Dimond Brothers and other sedevacantists or sedeprivationists....themselves are outside the Church".
Is it allowed to declare such things here?
I don't see the difference in what you said/asked. My response is the same. Dogmatic anti-sedevacantists have always been allowed to continue posting that sedevacantists are outside the Church, are schismatic, etc, etc. They are never banned for this. Only sedevacantists are not allowed to judge non-sedevacantists outside of the church ...and have been banned for it.
-
No, best case from their perspective is obviously that they're actually right. +Lefebvre repeatedly stated that they could in fact be right. I love it how so many self-proclaimed followers of +Lefebvre are dogmatic anti-sedevacantists when +Lefebvre was most certainly not; then they get upset at the suggestion that +Lefebvre was not dogmatic R&R, claim that the sedevacantists are lying when they produce verifiable quotations straight from The Angelus website, and throw tantrums in the face of indisputable proof.
It's always best for sedes to leave +ABL out of the sede conversations. He was never one and he never promoted the idea, rather, if anything, the opposite is true, as such, the best references sedes should use would be some others, like Ibranyi or the Dimonds or some other sede. I don't know why they very rarely use them.
Regardless of what the sedes believe, when I said most, I meant most non-sede Catholics actually believe that the sede's best case scenario is that they are only mistaken.
-
...I meant most non-sede Catholics actually believe that the sede's best case scenario is that they are only mistaken.
That's just based on bad will and wishful thinking on your part. +Lefebvre felt that they were very possibly right, so I guess he doesn't fall into your group of "non-sede Catholics".
-
That's just based on bad will and wishful thinking on your part. +Lefebvre felt that they were very possibly right, so I guess he doesn't fall into your group of "non-sede Catholics".
Not so, I actually hope that at some point in time that they are proven right the only way possible - by a future pope declaring as much. But if they are wrong, then they will suffer the consequences of being wrong. For non-sedes, this is the risk we are not willing to take, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to ever even consider taking that risk. Do not mistake my lack of liberal thinking with bad will and wishful thinking.
+ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition. He never thought it was a good idea or ever told anyone to become a sede, but he did expel sedes from his seminaries, who in turn went off and started their own sede groups.
Still, best if sedes stick to referencing their own, like Ibranyi and Dimonds, Fr. Cekada and +Sanborn and +CMRI and etc,. After all, it only makes sense that non-sedes never reference sedes to support non-sedeism, just as it makes no sense whatsoever to reference +ABL to support sedeism as if he was a supporter of it.
-
I’ll try to do some research. I’m Ukrainian rite btw.
I found these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUZbTn90734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIzumjrEjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Ja_7KTcPg
... and others but I am afraid to learn from adulterated content. After 40 years in V II I do not want to reiterate my error to take for granted what I am offered. Even (especiallly) when offered from official sources.
Also, I apologies for my ignorance, but from these videos I would assume that you do recognize the authority of the Holy Father, not the Russian Patriarch... One video suggests that there is conflict over the Filioque dogma but the first I listed suggests that you share it.
My wife's very good friend is Ukranian and Christian, but not Orthodox. I therefore assume she is of one of the 21 eastern rites. I am trying to understand what rite exactly her friend adheres to, but she only speaks Russian and I do not communicate directly with her. Anyway, from what I understand her friend believes the Filioque dogma and also recognizes the Holy Father (mind you, she's extremely critical of his opinions) and this, for me, is a ray of light since my wife is Orthodox, and I am hoping to learn that non Roman rites, as the Eastern rites, perhaps may be closer to the Orthodox religion, and make the transition easier.
Do you celebrate Mass in English, Russian, Ukranian or Latin? Do you sign yourself starting from the left or the right? Do you use three joint fingers? Do you believe the transubstantiation (two videos suggest that, yes, you do)?
But most importantly of all, does your rite (not you, personally) believe in strict EENS or lax EENS? I could not appreciate this from any of the videos (I googled Eastern rites EENS).
Sorry for all these questions and thank you for your time in searching for correct videos.
-
Do you celebrate Mass in English, Russian, Ukranian or Latin? Do you sign yourself starting from the left or the right? Do you use three joint fingers? Do you believe the transubstantiation (two videos suggest that, yes, you do)?
But most importantly of all, does your rite (not you, personally) believe in strict EENS or lax EENS? I could not appreciate this from any of the videos (I googled Eastern rites EENS).
The Eastern Catholic rites are Catholic and believe all the doctrines of the Catholic church. There may be some differences on undefined points, such as whether Our Lady died or not before the Assumption. Ukrainian-rite trained clergy tend to be conservative.
The liturgy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church was traditionally in Old Slavonic, a language standardized and transcribed by Sts. Cyril and Methodius. But in my experience, in the West most liturgies today are celebrated in Ukrainian or English with some hymns in Slavonic.
-
+ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition.
OK, we all know this, man. All we're saying is that unlike many of his followers, he was never dogmatic anti-sede.
-
OK, we all know this, man. All we're saying is that unlike many of his followers, he was never dogmatic anti-sede.
OT: if one believes that in 1958 Cardinal Siri was elected, but not elevated, to the see of Peter, is one sedevacantist?
-
OT: if one believes that in 1958 Cardinal Siri was elected, but not elevated, to the see of Peter, is one sedevacantist?
Technically, the term sedevacantist would not have applied for someone who believed that Siri was the pope ... before he died in 1989 of course. Similarly, sedevacantist doesn't really apply to those who think that Benedict XVI is still pope ... rather than Francis.
-
Not so, I actually hope that at some point in time that they are proven right the only way possible - by a future pope declaring as much. But if they are wrong, then they will suffer the consequences of being wrong. For non-sedes, this is the risk we are not willing to take, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to ever even consider taking that risk. Do not mistake my lack of liberal thinking with bad will and wishful thinking.
+ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition. He never thought it was a good idea or ever told anyone to become a sede, but he did expel sedes from his seminaries, who in turn went off and started their own sede groups.
Still, best if sedes stick to referencing their own, like Ibranyi and Dimonds, Fr. Cekada and +Sanborn and +CMRI and etc,. After all, it only makes sense that non-sedes never reference sedes to support non-sedeism, just as it makes no sense whatsoever to reference +ABL to support sedeism as if he was a supporter of it.
well there aren't any sedes with the same stature as ABL to reference. Sedes are using ABL to basically say, well even the founder of R + R didn't think Sedevacantism was *heresy* and its adherents outside the Church. I think its fair to appeal to him for that, albeit he could have been wrong.
That being said, you say "if they are wrong they will suffer the consequences of being wrong." That might be the case, but its also possible God would show mercy. I think that's more likely actually.
-
well there aren't any sedes with the same stature as ABL to reference. Sedes are using ABL to basically say, well even the founder of R + R didn't think Sedevacantism was *heresy* and its adherents outside the Church. I think its fair to appeal to him for that, albeit he could have been wrong.
That being said, you say "if they are wrong they will suffer the consequences of being wrong." That might be the case, but its also possible God would show mercy. I think that's more likely actually.
Thanks, ByzCat. Indeed, the point of the +Lefebvre reference is exactly as you stated. So many of the most dogmatic sedevacantists dishonestly try to portray +Lefebvre as the same. Yes, of course he could have been wrong. I would actually prefer one of these to say, "Yes, +Lefebvre was tolerant of sedevacantism, but I think that he was wrong." THAT would show a bit of sincerity and honesty that I would find refreshing. But there's this subtle form of +Lefebvre-worship out there where one almost gets the feeling that +Lefebvre has become some rule of faith and to disagree with him tantamount to heresy. You can respect the man and hold in in great esteem while disagreeing with some things he said or did ... as I in fact do. I have tremendous respect and admiration for him, but I disagree with some of his thinking ... especially, as you know, on the critical EENS issue.
-
But there's this subtle form of +Lefebvre-worship out there where one almost gets the feeling that +Lefebvre has become some rule of faith and to disagree with him tantamount to heresy.
Exactly. +ABL would be the first to shout loudly at everyone that he doesn't know everything. This is the normal attitude of saints.
.
Theologically speaking, I've learned a ton in reading Fr Wathen's books and listening to his sermons. Even though I originally took many of his arguments as my own, I'm open to reading why he's wrong on this or that topic. Obviously, he's not perfect in all things but no one is.
-
Thanks, ByzCat. Indeed, the point of the +Lefebvre reference is exactly as you stated. So many of the most dogmatic sedevacantists dishonestly try to portray +Lefebvre as the same. Yes, of course he could have been wrong. I would actually prefer one of these to say, "Yes, +Lefebvre was tolerant of sedevacantism, but I think that he was wrong." THAT would show a bit of sincerity and honesty that I would find refreshing. But there's this subtle form of +Lefebvre-worship out there where one almost gets the feeling that +Lefebvre has become some rule of faith and to disagree with him tantamount to heresy. You can respect the man and hold in in great esteem while disagreeing with some things he said or did ... as I in fact do. I have tremendous respect and admiration for him, but I disagree with some of his thinking ... especially, as you know, on the critical EENS issue.
I'm uncertain whether or not Lefebvre is right objectively speaking, but subjectively speaking I seriously can't believe that someone who in good faith just can't see how these guys could be popes would be damned for that, but of course "in good faith" is a point on which it is easy to defend oneself.
My main issue on the EENS stuff is not that people disagree with Lefebvre, but rather that in the way they're arguing for it I just don't see how they think Lefebvre was wrong in good faith. Like the arguments that are being made by Last Tradhican and Stubborn are so simplistic that *if* they are true, they are *obviously* true and there is no good reason why all the trad clergy would be disagreeing. The disagreement seems to shed doubt that dogma works the way they think it does, unless they're all in bad faith.
-
@ ByzCat3000
1. Do the Catholic Eastern Churches that are in communion with the Roman Church teach EENS rigorously (i.e. literal interpretation)?
2. What is Eastern Catholic Church's position regarding BoD?
3. What are the fundamental differences in doctrines between pre Vatican II Roman Catholics Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, besides differences in public expression of doctrine (liturgy, ect)?
4. As far as you know, did pre Vatican II doctrine consider a faithful of the Eastern Catholic Church saved if he died in in communion (with its Eastern Catholic Church)?
Can you point me to a good, active, thread regarding differences between the 21 Catholic Churches (Mainly Roman vis a vis the others). Thank you for investing your time to teach me about Eastern Catholic Churches.
-
well there aren't any sedes with the same stature as ABL to reference. Sedes are using ABL to basically say, well even the founder of R + R didn't think Sedevacantism was *heresy* and its adherents outside the Church. I think its fair to appeal to him for that, albeit he could have been wrong.
That being said, you say "if they are wrong they will suffer the consequences of being wrong." That might be the case, but its also possible God would show mercy. I think that's more likely actually.
Yes, you are correct, that is one of the reasons the sedes reference him, which in doing so infers that he believed "whichever position one chooses to take, God will accept." To me, due to the gravity of the choice, this is liberal thinking to which we are all susceptible, it is not traditional thinking nor clear Catholic thinking, and +ABL certainly never inferred any such thing.
Certainly God will show His mercy, of that there is no question, yet the consequences of being wrong still entail a certain degree of some type of punishment, this is all the reason we need to not insist that the Chair is Vacant. So like Lad, what you are saying is that our suffering may (or may not) be less, depending on our culpability.
-
My main issue on the EENS stuff is not that people disagree with Lefebvre, but rather that in the way they're arguing for it I just don't see how they think Lefebvre was wrong in good faith. Like the arguments that are being made by Last Tradhican and Stubborn are so simplistic that *if* they are true, they are *obviously* true and there is no good reason why all the trad clergy would be disagreeing. The disagreement seems to shed doubt that dogma works the way they think it does, unless they're all in bad faith.
My opinion is that +ABL thought what was (and still is) commonly taught the last 1000 years and more by many theologians, it is for this reason that the dogma had to be defined three times, and imo, needs to be defined again and again - as often as contrary ideas prevail. Why did not the theologians accept it as declared?
No matter how it's worded by theologians, the confused and contrary teachings of the idea that there is indeed salvation outside of the Church is centuries old and brings a message that is a very welcoming thing to most people, which is why they cling to it.
If we are to understand sacred dogma as the Church understands it, then per V1, we are to understand it "as once declared".
This not only makes sense, it is absolutely essential that we understand it this way. By the same token, if we are to believe that the way the Church understands it is that those outside of the Church can be saved because they are actually united to the Church by desire and longing, then the idea that most people are saved, prevails - which is contrary to sacred dogma and the words of Our Lord.
-
@ ByzCat3000
1. Do the Catholic Eastern Churches that are in communion with the Roman Church teach EENS rigorously (i.e. literal interpretation)?
2. What is Eastern Catholic Church's position regarding BoD?
3. What are the fundamental differences in doctrines between pre Vatican II Roman Catholics Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, besides differences in public expression of doctrine (liturgy, ect)?
4. As far as you know, did pre Vatican II doctrine consider a faithful of the Eastern Catholic Church saved if he died in in communion (with its Eastern Catholic Church)?
Can you point me to a good, active, thread regarding differences between the 21 Catholic Churches (Mainly Roman vis a vis the others). Thank you for investing your time to teach me about Eastern Catholic Churches.
Let's start with #4. Of course, the Church has always considered Eastern Rite Catholics to be fully Catholics ... unlike the Eastern Orthodox.
As for their doctrine, I find them to be a little more conservative than the mainstream Novus Ordo ... especially with regard to EENS, but not perfectly solid. I know the brother of the "Major Archbishop" (head prelate) of the Ukrainian Catholic Rite; he happens to be stationed over here in Akron, OH of all places. But, then again, I consider 95% of Traditional Catholics to be weak on EENS, and this erosion of the dogma was well underway for at least 100 years before Vatican II. In fact, it's the direct cause of Vatican II ... without any doubt. Father Feeney was the first to really key on what was going on. Ultimately the decay traces its roots back to the late 16th-century Jesuits (and one Franciscan) who began to float "Rewader God" theory ... to explain the plight of the newly-discovered natives in the Americas. Honestly, BoD itself was not a major issue, since in the St. Robert Bellarmine / St. Thomas view, it was limited to catechumens and those who publicly professed the faith and adhered visibly to the Church. It was not unlike how Karl Rahner accurately described the attitude of the Church Fathers. If there was some thought that these could be saved, it was only because the already adhered visibly to the Church. So ecclesiology was not impacted greatly by classic BoD. With "Rewarder God" theory, there's an invisible part of the Church that is no longer co-extensive with the visible ... which is EXACTLY what Vatican II's "subsistence" ecclesiology is describing.
-
3. What are the fundamental differences in doctrines between pre Vatican II Roman Catholics Church and Eastern Catholic Churches, besides differences in public expression of doctrine (liturgy, ect)?
These are rather odd questions. You do understand that Eastern Catholic Churches (ECCs) are Roman Catholic just like the Roman Rite? The ECCs recognize the Pope. That means, in a post-V2 world, they recognize V2. The ECCs, however, did not have the big revolution that happened in the Roman Rite, and V2 had relatively little impact on most of the Eastern Churches for various reasons.
In practice, Ukrainian-trained clergy are generally conservative, though some things might require a bit of explanation. Nearly all the problems I've encountered in the Ukrainian church were with biritual N.O. trained priests.
-
These are rather odd questions. You do understand that Eastern Catholic Churches (ECCs) are Roman Catholic just like the Roman Rite? The ECCs recognize the Pope. That means, in a post-V2 world, they recognize V2. The ECCs, however, did not have the big revolution that happened in the Roman Rite, and V2 had relatively little impact on most of the Eastern Churches for various reasons.
In practice, Ukrainian-trained clergy are generally conservative, though some things might require a bit of explanation. Nearly all the problems I've encountered in the Ukrainian church were with biritual N.O. trained priests.
Hello Stanley N, I admit my ignorance and I apologize for my repeated low resolution questions that, at times, engulf high resolution threads. I have recently opened my eyes after 40 years of culpable Catholic reformist torpor and only now I am learning correct doctrine and catechism. Please be patient with me.
I understand that these Churches are fully in communion with Rome but, given Rome's error, my doubts of Catholicism, for those who are in communion with Rome, are somewhat justified... perhaps I am a bit naive but, from my novice's perspective, not being in communion with Rome, appears to be a better predictor of one's Catholicism, than being in communion with Rome. Hence my question comparing them to the pre-Vatican II Roman, Latin Church.
I have an interest in understanding this as someone very dear to me might find it easier to convert from Orthodox Christianity to Eastern Catholic rather than to Roman Catholic but, before I present this alternative, I want to be sure that I am not moving towards just a different flavour of the same post-conciliar doctrines and the same lax EENS interpretation.
As for their doctrine, I find them to be a little more conservative than the mainstream Novus Ordo ... especially with regard to EENS, but not perfectly solid.
And BoD?
And what about the modern doctrine that the Church of God, presumably, includes many Churches... all of which lead to God and salvation with the Roman Catholic being but one expression of God's Church? I would imagine that Eastern Catholic Churches espouse this doctrine.
I am interested in Liturgy but not in Liturgy per se. I am not scandalized by vernacular or differences in rubrics as long as these do reflect correct doctrine. For example, I am less concerned by crossing oneself starting from the right or by using leaven bread as much as rejecting the doctrine of the Ascension or of the transubstantiation, etc.. Hence my concern over Eastern Catholic Churches' position regarding EENS and BoD.
Substance before form.
Again, thank you for investing your time and sharing your knowledge. I appreciate both.
-
Today's Mass
From the Introduction to Sexagesima Sunday in Saint Andrew Daily Missal:
For forty days and forty nights rain fell on the earth, while the ark floated on the waters which rose above the mountain tops and covered them; and in this whirlpool all men were carried away “like stubble” (Gradual); only Noah and his companions in the ark remaining alive. Then God remembered them and at length the rain ceased. After some time, Noah opened the window of the ark and set free a dove, which returned with a fresh olive leaf and Noah understood that the waters no longer covered the earth. And God told him, “Go out of the ark, thou and thy wife, thy sons and the wives of thy sons with thee” (Communion). And the rainbow appeared as a sign of reconciliation between God and men.
That his story is related to the Paschal mystery is shown by the fact that the Church reads it on Holy Saturday; and this is how she herself applies it, in the Liturgy, to our Lord and His Church. “The just wrath of the Creator drowned the guilty world in the vengeful waters of the flood, only Noah being saved in the ark. But then the admirable power of love laved the world in blood “. It was the wood of the ark which saved the human race and it is that of the Cross which in its turn, saves the world. “Thou alone,” says the Church, speaking of the Cross, “hast been found worthy to be, for this shipwrecked world, the ark which brings safely into port.” The open door in the side of the ark by which those enter who are to escape from the Flood, and who represent the Church, are as is explained in the liturgy, a type of the mystery of redemption; for on the Cross, our Lord had His sacred side open and from this gate of life, went forth the sacraments, giving true life to souls. Indeed the blood and water which flow from thence are symbols of the Eucharist and of Holy Baptism.”
“O God, who by water didst wash away the crimes of the guilty world, and by the overflowing of the deluge didst give a figure of regeneration, that one and the same element might in a mystery be the end of vice and the origin of virtue: look, O Lord, on the face of Thy Church and multiply in her Thy regenerations, opening the fonts of baptism all over the world for the renovation of the Gentiles. “In the days of Noah,” says St. Peter, “eight souls were saved by water, whereunto Baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also .”
I saw water flowing from the right side of the temple, alleluia; and all to whom that
water came were saved, and they shall say: alleluia, alleluia.
(The Asperges)
-
Since a new thread was made about the Eastern Catholic churches, I'm gonna remind people of what the OP was, since I don't think I've gotten a rational answer to it.
Let's imagine for the sake of argument a 10 year old Protestant child.
He has been baptized.
He "believes in Jesus", believes Jesus is God, believes Jesus died for his sins.
He hasn't committed any mortal sins.
However, he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity, because that's what his parents told him. he doesn't know anything about Catholicism. His parents told him to just read the Bible and follow it. So that's what he does.
He dies.
Where does he go?
I don't see how he can go to Limbo. Limbo is for (some of) the unbaptized. But he's been baptized. He's been ontologically changed into a Christian. So I don't see how he can go there.
I don't see how he could go to the fires of Hell, he hasn't committed any actual mortal sins, and we know per florence that to actually be damned to the fires of Hell you have to have committed a mortal sin.
So it seems to me logically that he would go to heaven. Not because he "deserves it" per se, but because, being baptized, being regenerated, he is a transformed creature, and thus without any mortal sins on his soul, he would ultimately attain the beatific vision (perhaps after some time in purgatory.)
However, according to Ladislaus, and I think the other "feeneyites" (descriptor, not insult) I don't see how he could go to heaven. While he's totally not culpable for this, he *doesn't* have the correct formal motive of faith. He's trusting his own interpretation of the Bible for truth. Not the Catholic Church.
I could be missing some fine distinction here, I just don't know what he is.
Note that my issue here is one of justice, not of emotion. I'm not "emotionally bothered" by him ending up in Limbo, I just don't see how he could logically end up there.
Now I realize this isn't an apology for any Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. being able to be saved, but again, *that's not the point of this thread*, this one is about the baptized who have incorrect formal motives of faith.
-
General idea is that he commits the mortal sin of heresy. But I agree, it's hard to see how a ten year old kid who probably knows next to nothing about Catholicism could be fully culpable for rejecting it(I mean when I was 10 I think I thought Catholic and Christian were wholly synonymous, and while I might have heard "Oh so-and-so's a Protestant", I don't think I had any idea what that meant). So it seems hard for me to see how his heresy could be mortally sinful.
Yet, the boy wouldn't be a material heretic, as he's missing the rule of faith. And that a formal heretic would be saved seems contrary to EENS.
Regardless, I think this thought exercise is fairly pointless considering it only applies to such a tiny percentage of non-Catholic Christians.
-
General idea is that he commits the mortal sin of heresy. But I agree, it's hard to see how a ten year old kid who probably knows next to nothing about Catholicism could be fully culpable for rejecting it(I mean when I was 10 I think I thought Catholic and Christian were wholly synonymous, and while I might have heard "Oh so-and-so's a Protestant", I don't think I had any idea what that meant). So it seems hard for me to see how his heresy could be mortally sinful.
Yet, the boy wouldn't be a material heretic, as he's missing the rule of faith. And that a formal heretic would be saved seems contrary to EENS.
Regardless, I think this thought exercise is fairly pointless considering it only applies to such a tiny percentage of non-Catholic Christians.
I think its not pointless because it criticizes the foundation of the feeneyite system. Like its rhetorically convenient (and thus attractive to many people) to be like "see, we take the dogma for what it says and you all don't." But then you really examine it and there are legitimately hard cases.
I actually think the 10 year old would indeed just be a material heretic, is Catholic, and would be saved, but I don't see how that reconciles with stuff other people are saying.
-
The biggest problem I have with "feeneyites" is that for all they're willing to protest against supposed EENS-deniers on forums, I have NEVER seen the 99% of Trad clergy who (apparently) deny it to a far greater extent ever get grilled on it. Many of these people see Bishop Williamson as their hero, and yet they neither defer to him nor do they correct him on his error. You'd think they'd be uncomfortable about the leader of their movement denying a Catholic dogma, even if done materially and in good faith.
And yet they don't really care, they only care when Larry from Tennessee does it. Because Larry is clearly more likely to spread the "error" than a Bishop.
-
The biggest problem I have with "feeneyites" is that for all they're willing to protest against supposed EENS-deniers on forums, I have NEVER seen the 99% of Trad clergy who (apparently) deny it to a far greater extent ever get grilled on it. Many of these people see Bishop Williamson as their hero, and yet they neither defer to him nor do they correct him on his error. You'd think they'd be uncomfortable about the leader of their movement denying a Catholic dogma, even if done materially and in good faith.
And yet they don't really care, they only care when Larry from Tennessee does it. Because Larry is clearly more likely to spread the "error" than a Bishop.
I don't think they're denying it, but I see your point. I defer to the trad clergy on this TBH.
-
I don't think they're denying it, but I see your point. I defer to the trad clergy on this TBH.
I meant from the Feeneyite perspective. Plenty on here have called positions far less liberal than what the SSPX and Resistance teach to be "denying EENS", yet they don't seem to be at all bothered by their shepherds denying it.
-
I actually think the 10 year old would indeed just be a material heretic, is Catholic, and would be saved, but I don't see how that reconciles with stuff other people are saying.
This is basically the pre-V2 notion of invincible ignorance.
The common (pre-V2) belief is that after the use of reason, a person can only be in a state of grace or mortal sin. At the use of reason, the first moral act either follows the enlightenment of God to sanctifying grace, or is a mortal sin.
A baptized protestant child, having the infused virtues, would seem more disposed to a virtuous act at the use of reason than an unbaptized child.
But how likely do you think it would be for such a child to maintain the state of grace for several years without any further help from the sacraments (in the case of a protestant)?
-
This is basically the pre-V2 notion of invincible ignorance.
The common (pre-V2) belief is that after the use of reason, a person can only be in a state of grace or mortal sin. At the use of reason, the first moral act either follows the enlightenment of God to sanctifying grace, or is a mortal sin.
A baptized protestant child, having the infused virtues, would seem more disposed to a virtuous act at the use of reason than an unbaptized child.
But how likely do you think it would be for such a child to maintain the state of grace for several years without any further help from the sacraments (in the case of a protestant)?
I don't think its particularly likely. I'm not even *certain* it would ever happen, though I don't see how I could know that for sure either.
A lot of people here think even the pre Vatican II concept of Invincible Ignorance contradicts EENS
-
Since a new thread was made about the Eastern Catholic churches, I'm gonna remind people of what the OP was, since I don't think I've gotten a rational answer to it.
Let's imagine for the sake of argument a 10 year old Protestant child.
He has been baptized.
He "believes in Jesus", believes Jesus is God, believes Jesus died for his sins.
He hasn't committed any mortal sins.
However, he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity, because that's what his parents told him. he doesn't know anything about Catholicism. His parents told him to just read the Bible and follow it. So that's what he does.
He dies.
Where does he go?
I don't see how he can go to Limbo. Limbo is for (some of) the unbaptized. But he's been baptized. He's been ontologically changed into a Christian. So I don't see how he can go there.
If this child at 10 years old has not yet reached the age of reason (there is no way for us to know with certainty) then he is not guilty of actual sin, and since he was baptized, he would go to heaven.
OTOH, if he attained the use of reason before he died, then we have to say that he could not enter heaven because he died outside of the Church, this is dogma. I don't see how he could go to Limbo dying baptized and outside of the Church.
We do not know even his degree of culpability, which, while we believe would be next to nothing, we really don't know.
-
This is basically the pre-V2 notion of invincible ignorance.
The common (pre-V2) belief is that after the use of reason, a person can only be in a state of grace or mortal sin. At the use of reason, the first moral act either follows the enlightenment of God to sanctifying grace, or is a mortal sin.
I never really thought of it this way but from our perspective, this is true. After reaching the age of reason, one is either in the Church or outside of the Church. Certainly if God were to see that in time, this child would convert and enter the Church and end up dying a good Catholic, then He would not take him until this had been accomplished.
-
OTOH, if he attained the use of reason before he died, then we have to say that he could not enter heaven because he died outside of the Church, this is dogma.
But there is a question of fact - did he die actually outside the Church?
A baptized person can reconcile with the Church rather quickly. Or are you also ruling out an act of contrition?
-
Let's imagine for the sake of argument a 10 year old Protestant child. He has been baptized. He "believes in Jesus", believes Jesus is God, believes Jesus died for his sins. He hasn't committed any mortal sins.
... CUT ...
He dies Catholic and in communion.
He is validly baptized (*) and, hence, he has entered the Catholic Church. Until he reaches the age of understanding (I am not certain what the English translation is) he cannot sin or commit heresy because to commit either one must understand them.
(*) it is irrelevant who baptized the boy. Catholic, protestant or even atheist. With correct intention anyone can validly baptize.
... CUT ... You'd think they'd be uncomfortable about the leader of their movement denying a Catholic dogma, even if done materially and in good faith.
I don't think that those who believe in the EENS dogma follow a "leader" or a "movement". I can only speak for myself and I have merely reached a personal conviction. I do not even know about the "leaders" and "movements" that you cite.
I just think that, when in doubt, better not be arrogant (me, not you) trying to interpret a dogma.
Also, if strict EENS were not correct, then Vatican II would be correct as VII teaches a lax, open interpretation of EENS to include in the Church many who are, otherwise, not.
-
But there is a question of fact - did he die actually outside the Church?
He died inside the Catholic Church. The baptism was valid.
-
But there is a question of fact - did he die actually outside the Church?
A baptized person can reconcile with the Church rather quickly. Or are you also ruling out an act of contrition?
Based on what Byz said: "he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity" is a belief that is not Catholic but rather Protestant, so based on his belief, he is Protestant and not Catholic, hence outside of the Church.
Albeit for a different reason, I rule out an act of contrition the same as do those who think that due to his circuмstances, he has no need of an act of contrition. Although I believe he needs it, I believe he has no idea what it even is, or if he does, has no need of it because to him, the Bible is all that matters.
-
Since a new thread was made about the Eastern Catholic churches, I'm gonna remind people of what the OP was, since I don't think I've gotten a rational answer to it.
Let's imagine for the sake of argument a 10 year old Protestant child.
He has been baptized.
He "believes in Jesus", believes Jesus is God, believes Jesus died for his sins.
He hasn't committed any mortal sins.
However, he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity, because that's what his parents told him. he doesn't know anything about Catholicism. His parents told him to just read the Bible and follow it. So that's what he does.
He dies.
Where does he go?
I don't see how he can go to Limbo. Limbo is for (some of) the unbaptized. But he's been baptized. He's been ontologically changed into a Christian. So I don't see how he can go there.
I don't see how he could go to the fires of Hell, he hasn't committed any actual mortal sins, and we know per florence that to actually be damned to the fires of Hell you have to have committed a mortal sin.
So it seems to me logically that he would go to heaven. Not because he "deserves it" per se, but because, being baptized, being regenerated, he is a transformed creature, and thus without any mortal sins on his soul, he would ultimately attain the beatific vision (perhaps after some time in purgatory.)
However, according to Ladislaus, and I think the other "feeneyites" (descriptor, not insult) I don't see how he could go to heaven. While he's totally not culpable for this, he *doesn't* have the correct formal motive of faith. He's trusting his own interpretation of the Bible for truth. Not the Catholic Church.
I could be missing some fine distinction here, I just don't know what he is.
Note that my issue here is one of justice, not of emotion. I'm not "emotionally bothered" by him ending up in Limbo, I just don't see how he could logically end up there.
Now I realize this isn't an apology for any Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. being able to be saved, but again, *that's not the point of this thread*, this one is about the baptized who have incorrect formal motives of faith.
If a person was truly just in the eyes of God, and thus one of the elect, he would have been born in a time and place where he could find everything he needs for his salvation. So, what is there to speculate about? The problem with the people who do not accept the dogmas on EENS as they are written, is that they think that God has to invent some other way to save people because "His EENS system does not work for every case as it is written.".
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words even before the world was even created, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul. Nobody is born or dies in a time and place not chosen by God.
-
If a person was truly just in the eyes of God, and thus one of the elect, he would have been born in a time and place where he could find everything he needs for his salvation. So, what is there to speculate about? The problem with the people who do not accept the dogmas on EENS as they are written, is that they think that God has to invent some other way to save people because "His EENS system does not work for every case as it is written.".
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words even before the world was even created, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul. Nobody is born or dies in a time and place not chosen by God.
This is true, but its not an answer to the question.
-
This is true, but its not an answer to the question.
What St. Augustine said is true, but you do not believe in Divine Providence either (just like you do not believe the dogmas on EENS as they are written) , and that disbelief is the foundation of your question. If you believed in Divine Providence, you would not ask that question.
Questions posed to Fr. Feeney and his answers (almost 70 years ago):
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! Neither 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.
-
However, according to Ladislaus, and I think the other "feeneyites" (descriptor, not insult) I don't see how he could go to heaven. While he's totally not culpable for this, he *doesn't* have the correct formal motive of faith. He's trusting his own interpretation of the Bible for truth. Not the Catholic Church.
I could be missing some fine distinction here, I just don't know what he is.
Well, that's not 100% true ... about my position. I have said it before that I consider it hypothetically possible that, say, the baptized 10-year-old Protestant boy, despite technically being at the age of reason, still has a very foggy, vague, and muddled view of things ... to the point that his heresy MIGHT be purely material. I recall the state of my own mind at that time and realize that things were a bit foggy.
I've used this analogy before. If a Catholic missionary found a savage in the jungle, and just instructed him regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, baptized him, and he died, he would be Catholic. Let's say a Prot minister did the same thing ... instructed him in the same core mysteries, baptized him, and he died. In both cases, he dies in the same state, as a Catholic. I believe that there are some people, especially, say, a 7- to 10- year-old, who might be in the same very primitive mindset where the supernatural virtue of faith hasn't yet been vitiated by formal heresy. As one advances in age, this gets less and less likely. I believe that the supernatural virtue of faith becomes gradually vitiated over time once someone reaches the age of reason.
With that said, however, I agree with LastTrad that I believe God's providence would put His elect clearly and visibly inside the Church. So there's some danger in Jesuit "casuistry" ... (i.e. "let's take the following case" theology). If someone dies as a 10-year-old Protestant boy, then I consider it all but certain that he was lost. So the type of speculation I engaged in above is useless. For whatever reason, God allowed this soul to dies as that 10-year-old Protestant boy, likely because God knew that had he been in the Catholic Church, he would have been more culpable for wasting the gift of faith. Nevertheless, it is clear that, say, a baptized 3-year-old Protestant boy dies a Catholic. And I don't believe that there's some magic about being exactly 7 years old, so that at the strike of midnight on his 7th birthday, supernatural faith ceases. 7 is just a rule of thumb. I swear that one of my kids reached the age of reason by 4 ... others, well, I'm still waiting for, at the age of 18 :-).
-
Well, that's not 100% true ... about my position. I have said it before that I consider it hypothetically possible that, say, the baptized 10-year-old Protestant boy, despite technically being at the age of reason, still has a very foggy, vague, and muddled view of things ... to the point that his heresy MIGHT be purely material. I recall the state of my own mind at that time and realize that things were a bit foggy.
I've used this analogy before. If a Catholic missionary found a savage in the jungle, and just instructed him regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, baptized him, and he died, he would be Catholic. Let's say a Prot minister did the same thing ... instructed him in the same core mysteries, baptized him, and he died. In both cases, he dies in the same state, as a Catholic. I believe that there are some people, especially, say, a 7- to 10- year-old, who might be in the same very primitive mindset where the supernatural virtue of faith hasn't yet been vitiated by formal heresy. As one advances in age, this gets less and less likely. I believe that the supernatural virtue of faith becomes gradually vitiated over time once someone reaches the age of reason.
With that said, however, I agree with LastTrad that I believe God's providence would put His elect clearly and visibly inside the Church. So there's some danger in Jesuit "casuistry" ... (i.e. "let's take the following case" theology). If someone dies as a 10-year-old Protestant boy, then I consider it all but certain that he was lost. So the type of speculation I engaged in above is useless. For whatever reason, God allowed this soul to dies as that 10-year-old Protestant boy, likely because God knew that had he been in the Catholic Church, he would have been more culpable for wasting the gift of faith. Nevertheless, it is clear that, say, a baptized 3-year-old Protestant boy dies a Catholic. And I don't believe that there's some magic about being exactly 7 years old, so that at the strike of midnight on his 7th birthday, supernatural faith ceases. 7 is just a rule of thumb. I swear that one of my kids reached the age of reason by 4 ... others, well, I'm still waiting for, at the age of 18 :-).
OK apologies for the confusion about your position. Yeah I was trying to present a case where the person *is* able to reason, but still knows literally nothing but the Protestant rule of faith, yet isn't in any way culpable for this, or is guilty of any other mortal sins. I actually don't think that's an unreasonable scenario especially for people in the 7-14 range
-
I think the other "feeneyites" (descriptor, not insult)
It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".
-
It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".
I'm open to other ideas, but the terms you ask for are loaded as well.
-
Basically this is a thought experiment that takes as a premise that it is possible to live a virtuous life without the sacraments and without Catholic instruction. I don’t know about you but when I was 10 I had Protestant friends and none of them honored their parents as they should and they routinely lied and and it was around that age that boys started getting interested in girls with all of the bad behavior that seemed to come along with it. Of course all of us post V2 Catholic boys were no better. So I would put the premise in the category of fantasy. Fallen human nature being what it is. In the real world, Protestant boys need to be converted and go to confession lest they lose their souls.
-
Basically this is a thought experiment ...
Yes, that's a good way to describe it.
-
It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".
Yes, and I've repeated this story before. There was a professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona (SSPX) who taught that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. He was admonished by +Williamson for getting "close to Feeneyism."
-
Yes, and I've repeated this story before. There was a professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona (SSPX) who taught that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. He was admonished by +Williamson for getting "close to Feeneyism."
Honestly there are three different categories of issues that separate "feeneyites" from a standard SSPX type trad.
1: Baptism of Desire/Blood for catechumens, those who explicitly have the Catholic faith. You lean toward disagreeing with this, but you also don't care very much about it.
2: Salvation for at least some people who *don't* explicitly have the Christian faith at all. So like your Muslims who believe in a God that rewards and are invincibly ignorant, etc. This is most commonly what you guys are opposing.
3: Salvation for a baptized Christian who believes in Protestant doctrine, and is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, etc.
I'm not convinced that all who fall under #2 are damned, but I can see how that *could* be the case. They aren't entitled to anything, maybe the best they can do is Limbo. I see no *logical* problem anyways.
I can't make sense of denying #3. Like the logic doesn't seem to be there.
-
Based on what Byz said: "he believes that the Bible is the only thing that matters to Christianity" is a belief that is not Catholic but rather Protestant, so based on his belief, he is Protestant and not Catholic, hence outside of the Church.
This may or may not be "formal" heresy. Even a Catholic child can be badly instructed by very misinformed parents, and may believe some very protestant things.
Those in a position of instructing have an obligation to know what they're talking about. Those in a position of being instructed, much less so. An argument could be made that the minimal obligation of an ordinary Catholic layperson today is explicit faith in the the matters stated in the Creed (Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, etc.) or reflected in major feasts. (And I think St. Thomas did make that argument.)
-
I'm open to other ideas, but the terms you ask for are loaded as well.
What would you call these saints?:
Here are St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. John Chrysostom speaking clearly against EVEN the explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen:
St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”
St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”
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)
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20: “Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
-
It's either ignorance or detraction to call one who believes in EENS as it is written a "Feeneyite". I do not think that you would want to be thought of as either (ignorant or a detractor). Call us literal EENSers or something along those lines. Not every SSPX chapel attending person is a "Lefebvrist", nor is every Latin mass attendee a "rigorist".
From Fr. Cekada, of the sedevacantes SSPV:
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
-
This may or may not be "formal" heresy. Even a Catholic child can be badly instructed by very misinformed parents, and may believe some very protestant things.
Those in a position of instructing have an obligation to know what they're talking about. Those in a position of being instructed, much less so. An argument could be made that the minimal obligation of an ordinary Catholic layperson today is explicit faith in the the matters stated in the Creed (Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, etc.) or reflected in major feasts. (And I think St. Thomas did make that argument.)
I'm not questioning whether or not the child was in formal heresy (likely not imo). Yet because he believed that the Bible was all that matters, then he did not believe what he was supposed to believe in order to be saved. He died a prot and as such died outside of the Church.
The reason there is no salvation outside of the Church, is not only or necessarily due to formal heresy or other acts or crimes, rather, it is because it is a sin to *not* believe in the Church, which is Christ. This is all that is necessary to die outside of the Church. Dying in a state of unbelief is to die in sin, the sin of unbelief which. So if anything, we can say he died in sin, the sin of unbelief. Whether or not it's possible for a 10 year old to be in formal or material heresy is entirely irrelevant.
In John 16, Our Lord said: [8] "And when He is come, He will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9] Of sin: because they believed not in me". No one can believe in Him and at the same time not believe in His Church. As Pope Pius XII said referencing St. Paul, Christ and the Church are one: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself."
To further elaborate, Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"...And you will say; well they believe in Christ, and my answer is, you forget that Christ and the Church are one. If you separate the Church from Christ, you have sought to divide Christ. There is no such thing as Christ without the Church because the Church is His Mystical Body.
As St Augustine referred to this mystery; the Church is with Christ, the whole Christ, there is no salvation independently of the Church anymore than there is salvation independently of Christ. You can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one.
And this is of course the great heresy of Protestantism, they dare to separate salvation from Christ because they separate salvation from the Church. And I’m going to ask you, by what power can they be saved?"
So going strictly by Byz's description, then all we can say is that he died in the sin of unbelief and on that account, he died outside of the Church where there is no salvation.
-
From Fr. Cekada, of the sedevacantes SSPV:
.... It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Whatever else can be said about Fr. Cekada, his honesty in explicitly denying the dogma should be remembered.
-
I don't think that those who believe in the EENS dogma follow a "leader" or a "movement". I can only speak for myself and I have merely reached a personal conviction. I do not even know about the "leaders" and "movements" that you cite.
I just think that, when in doubt, better not be arrogant (me, not you) trying to interpret a dogma.
Also, if strict EENS were not correct, then Vatican II would be correct as VII teaches a lax, open interpretation of EENS to include in the Church many who are, otherwise, not.
I'm referring to the fact that most of them are followers of Bishop Williamson and consider themselves part of his Resistance, yet no one seems to be making any effort to correct him?
For the mainline SSPX you have the same issue with Bishop Fellay and co.
-
From Fr. Cekada, of the sedevacantes SSPV:
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
This is PRECISELY the emotional theology that inspired the Jesuits to invent "Rewarder God" theory. Fresh off the discovery of the New World, they were confronted with the fact that these natives had remained ignorant of the Church for 1500+ years, and they, like Father Cekada, "refuse[d] to believe that hell is their eternal destiny."
Folks, THIS IS NOT CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. We do not theologize based on EMOTION. We take what God has revealed and apply reason to it.
-
I'm referring to the fact that most of them are followers of Bishop Williamson and consider themselves part of his Resistance, yet no one seems to be making any effort to correct him?
For the mainline SSPX you have the same issue with Bishop Fellay and co.
They will not hear of it for a few reasons, one of those reasons is because they were taught to believe same as Fr. Cekada, that this dogma does not actually mean what it actually says.
-
They will not hear of it for a few reasons, one of those reasons is because they were taught to believe same as Fr. Cekada, that this dogma does not actually mean what it actually says.
What's most disturbing is that most of the lax EENSers don't even TRY To pay lip service to the dogma.
When you have the CMRI publishing an article entitled, "The Salvation of those Outside the Church" (claiming it's possible) and various Traditional Catholics repeatedly stating that non-Catholics can be saved, all of them directly and verbatim contradicting defined dogma, you have a serious problem. This goes back to deLugo in the 17th century declaring that "Jews, heretics, schismatics ... CAN be saved" whereas the Council of Florence clearly declared that "Jews, heretics, schismatics CANNOT be saved."
Come on, guys, at least claim that these people are Catholics somehow. Even Rahner does that. At the very least, you have to allege that these are formally Catholic even if materially non-Catholics ... or some gymnastics like that. But they don't even bother. They don't have enough respect for Catholic dogma to try reconciling their theories with it.
I remember that Bishop McKenna asserted that the EENS definitions were merely hyperbole, an urgent warning for people to become Catholic, i.e. that the Church was just trying to scare people for their benefit.
For as much as everyone pretends to be against "Modernism," they practice Modernism here. When you can apply distinctions to a Catholic dogma that lead to claiming that Catholic teaching is in fact the VERY OPPOSITE of what the dogma actually says, then that's textbook Modernism.
-
3: Salvation for a baptized Christian who believes in Protestant doctrine, and is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, etc.
Strictly speaking, as Stubborn says, we must say, per Church teaching, that a 10 year old protestant boy who died in the state of grace, being only a material heretic, is not in heaven. Does that mean this particular boy is in hell? No. Or Limbo? No. It just means that, as Catholics, this must be our outlook on salvation, this must be our missionary spirit, this must be our motivation to try to convert ALL those whom we come across in life. If EENS is watered-down, and if we think that "good protestants" can be saved (or even others of other religions), then why preach the gospel to them? Why waste our time spreading the Faith? If EENS is watered-down, then the spread of Truth suffers infinitely more. This is problem with BOD, as it is liberally understood today.
-
I'm referring to the fact that most of them are followers of Bishop Williamson and consider themselves part of his Resistance, yet no one seems to be making any effort to correct him?
I know personally of one gentleman who lives in St Mary's who would drive +W to and from the airport (2 hour drive each way) and would have many in depth conversations about BOD and how it is a liberalization of EENS. This was obviously a while ago, since +W isn't part of the new-sspx anymore, but to say that conversations aren't happening is illogical.
.
I've also sent +W a few emails to his "Kyrie Eleison" website, specifically to challenge him about his famous "new mass comments". +W answered the emails promptly, was very cordial (as was I) and we had a short, but lively and mature discussion. Considering how busy he is, I'm surprised he answered my emails (and also because we've only met in person 1 time...if he even remembered me). How many other emails does the good Bishop receive on matters of BOD? It could be many, since he encourages emails. To assume these conversations aren't happening is illogical.
-
Strictly speaking, as Stubborn says, we must say, per Church teaching, that a 10 year old protestant boy who died in the state of grace, being only a material heretic, is not in heaven. Does that mean this particular boy is in hell? No. Or Limbo? No. It just means that, as Catholics, this must be our outlook on salvation, this must be our missionary spirit, this must be our motivation to try to convert ALL those whom we come across in life. If EENS is watered-down, and if we think that "good protestants" can be saved (or even others of other religions), then why preach the gospel to them? Why waste our time spreading the Faith? If EENS is watered-down, then the spread of Truth suffers infinitely more. This is problem with BOD, as it is liberally understood today.
Another way to say this is that the presumption is that the boy was not saved. I think it would be an incredibly rare thing for God NOT to lead any of His elect into the visible Church.
Rahner:
Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church.
-
I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.
Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.
Here's the range of theories:
1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith
-
Come on, guys, at least claim that these people are Catholics somehow. Even Rahner does that. At the very least, you have to allege that these are formally Catholic even if materially non-Catholics ... or some gymnastics like that.
Exactly. That's why one could make a *long shot* argument for a 10 year old protestant boy being saved. He's baptized, he doesn't know he's in error. If anyone is part of the "soul of the Church" it's him (since he's already a member of the body, being baptized).
.
You ABSOLUTELY cannot say the same thing about a person in a religion like Judaism, Muslimism, Hinduism, etc because THEY DON'T EVEN ACCEPT CHRIST. They aren't even "in the ballpark". At least the 10 yr old protestant boy is baptized and believes in basic Catholic doctrine.
.
It's absolutely insane that these liberal, heretic BOD'ers can lump a 10 year-old protestant boy in with the likes of a native indian, a hindu, a jew, or a muslim. It's comparing apples to airplanes. But once you start denying doctrine, and come up with your own "interpretations" then you lose Divine Wisdom and you quickly devolve into lunacy.
-
I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.
Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.
Here's the range of theories:
1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith
#1 is absurd, since invincible ignorance is merely exculpatory (as St. Thomas clearly explained) but does not actively supply anything
#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis
#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703
#4 and #5 are the only viable Catholic options.
But we see the BoDers mindlessly conflate #1, #2, and #3 above to make their case. It's as if they're trying to throw "stuff" at the wall just to see what might stick.
-
I'd still like to know why did not the theologians accept the dogma as declared?
Nearly everyone who does not accept it as declared references some theologian who taught that it does not actually mean what it actually says. If it weren't for the theologians changing what it says, I suppose others would have done so, but still, look at what has come of it.
-
I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.
Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.
Here's the range of theories:
1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 is absurd, since invincible ignorance is merely exculpatory (as St. Thomas clearly explained) but does not actively supply anything
#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis
#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703
#4 and #5 are the only viable Catholic options.
But we see the BoDers mindlessly conflate #1, #2, and #3 above to make their case. It's as if they're trying to throw "stuff" at the wall just to see what might stick.
Excellent point, a bottom line! Let's etch it in stone. Can you quote the condemnation of 1703 and Vatican I quote concerning natural faith , so I can book it in my archives for future application.
-
I'd still like to know why did not the theologians accept the dogma as declared?
Nearly everyone who does not accept it as declared references some theologian who taught that it does not actually mean what it actually says. If it weren't for the theologians changing what it says, I suppose others would have done so, but still, look at what has come of it.
1) Theologians theorize for a living, they use to theorize among themselves in seminaries as professors and students, where they were given all kinds of leeway in their "ivory towers". However, in the late 1800's that changed and they started theorizing to the laity, to the masses, and today the theories are legion. Look at the theory of salvation of the Indians by belief in a god that rewards made possible by their invincible ignorance (=they could not be reached by man, priests did not even know they existed), so they say, the theory went nowhere for almost 300 years, no laity even heard of it, till it was foisted upon the faithful in the early 20th century.
2) I do not get the impression that dogmas meant the same to those theologians like it does to us today since Vatican I defined papal infallibility.
-
I'm not questioning whether or not the child was in formal heresy (likely not imo). Yet because he believed that the Bible was all that matters, then he did not believe what he was supposed to believe in order to be saved. He died a prot and as such died outside of the Church.
The reason there is no salvation outside of the Church, is not only or necessarily due to formal heresy or other acts or crimes, rather, it is because it is a sin to *not* believe in the Church, which is Christ. This is all that is necessary to die outside of the Church. Dying in a state of unbelief is to die in sin, the sin of unbelief which. So if anything, we can say he died in sin, the sin of unbelief. Whether or not it's possible for a 10 year old to be in formal or material heresy is entirely irrelevant.
In John 16, Our Lord said: [8] "And when He is come, He will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9] Of sin: because they believed not in me". No one can believe in Him and at the same time not believe in His Church. As Pope Pius XII said referencing St. Paul, Christ and the Church are one: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself."
To further elaborate, Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"...And you will say; well they believe in Christ, and my answer is, you forget that Christ and the Church are one. If you separate the Church from Christ, you have sought to divide Christ. There is no such thing as Christ without the Church because the Church is His Mystical Body.
As St Augustine referred to this mystery; the Church is with Christ, the whole Christ, there is no salvation independently of the Church anymore than there is salvation independently of Christ. You can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one.
And this is of course the great heresy of Protestantism, they dare to separate salvation from Christ because they separate salvation from the Church. And I’m going to ask you, by what power can they be saved?"
So going strictly by Byz's description, then all we can say is that he died in the sin of unbelief and on that account, he died outside of the Church where there is no salvation.
I just don’t see what the mechanics are in Catholic theology for someone to unknowingly commit a mortal sin, or for someone without mortal sin to be damned. That’s my point. I get that someone with original sin alone would go to limbo, but the baptized kid doesn’t even have original sin.
I agree with Fr wathen as far as it goes. I deal with Protestants on a daily basis, my whole family is Protestant. They have a ridiculous idea that they can just separate Christ from his church and still believing in Christ is enough. That’s stupid. And not what I’m addressing
-
I just don’t see what the mechanics are in Catholic theology for someone to unknowingly commit a mortal sin, ...
Well, I think that the only machanism would be through negligence. So, for instance, if I fail to take sufficient effort to inform my conscience, and do something that's objectively grave matter, I am culpable for grave sin ... due to the fact that I SHOULD have known it was wrong had I done my duty to inform my conscience. So, for instance, I am a Catholic but am lax about studying my faith. I go ahead with an in vitro fertilization procedure to help have a child. I don't think there's anything wrong with it when I do it. But I still commit grave sin in performing this activity because I was gravely negligent in the formation of my conscience. It's something I SHOULD have known.
That's actually where the notion of INVINCIBLE ignorance comes in. Even if you believe ignorance is exculpatory, it's only exculpatory when it's INVINCIBLE. Very little ignorance is actually invincible. So, for instance, a Protestant who knows about Catholicism cannot have invincible ignorance. Most people misuse this term and apply it to anyone who "has not been persuaded regarding the truth of Catholicism." That's not what it means.
-
I think that we need to stop talking about BoD per se, since the lax EENSers keep hiding behind it.
Let's instead argue about what is required for SUPERNATURAL FAITH. Without supernatural faith, no BoD is possible.
Here's the range of theories:
1) invincible ignorance suffices for supernatural faith
2) sincerity in seeking the truth suffices for supernatural faith
3) explicit belief in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked (believed with the proper formal motive) suffices for supernatural faith
4) explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (along with the proper formal motive of faith) is required for supernatural faith
5) in addition to number 4, Sacramental Baptism is required for supernatural faith
The baseline should be the common act of faith found in any missal:
Oh my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy divine son became man and died for our sins and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.
This act establishes the formal motive of faith as well as the knowledge of the existence of a divinely established social institution which presumably (if only implicitly) one must know is necessary for salvation. How can you desire (explicitly or implicitly) to enter that which you do not know exists? And why would you desire (explicitly or implicitly) something you didn’t know existed?
-
#1 is absurd, since invincible ignorance is merely exculpatory (as St. Thomas clearly explained) but does not actively supply anything
#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis
#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703
#4 and #5 are the only viable Catholic options.
But we see the BoDers mindlessly conflate #1, #2, and #3 above to make their case. It's as if they're trying to throw "stuff" at the wall just to see what might stick.
#1 is totally absurd b/c it raises invincible ignorance to the level of a virtue. Accordingly, it would have been more charitable had the Eight North American Martyrs not preached the gospel to the Hurons and had left them in ignorance(=salvation through ignorance). All our missionary orders for conversion have vanished due to this new "virtue".
-
That's actually where the notion of INVINCIBLE ignorance comes in. Even if you believe ignorance is exculpatory, it's only exculpatory when it's INVINCIBLE. Very little ignorance is actually invincible. So, for instance, a Protestant who knows about Catholicism cannot have invincible ignorance. Most people misuse this term and apply it to anyone who "has not been persuaded regarding the truth of Catholicism." That's not what it means.
I have not read the entire thread, but I agree with this 100%.
-
I just don’t see what the mechanics are in Catholic theology for someone to unknowingly commit a mortal sin, or for someone without mortal sin to be damned. That’s my point. I get that someone with original sin alone would go to limbo, but the baptized kid doesn’t even have original sin.
We cannot say a person who unknowingly commits a mortal sin did not sin for the simple reason that a sin was indeed committed. We will never know in this life how often we are guilty of rejecting divine promptings which would have led us toward grace and away from sin, toward the faith and the truth, even into the Church for those outside of the Church. We won't know how often we did this till the next world when we will see it clearly.
Speaking of those outside of the Church, rather than working against, their free will works in conjunction with their inclination toward evil (which we all have due to Original Sin) whenever they reject the opportunity to gain grace. It may be a perceived inconvenience, selfishness, laziness, weakness or some other reason they choose for not corresponding to divine promptings, but they do, and do so always of their own free will. This rejection is commonly taught to be ignorance or invincible ignorance and is so taught in order to reward salvation to those outside of the Church.
What StanlyN said earlier is true, after the age of reason, a Catholic can only be in a state of grace or mortal sin. A Non-Catholic can only be in a state of mortal sin, if it were possible that he had never committed a mortal sin, then he must be guilty of the sin of unbelief as long as he remains outside of the Church, as taught in Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm): "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."
-
We cannot say a person who unknowingly commits a mortal sin did not sin for the simple reason that a sin was indeed committed. We will never know in this life how often we are guilty of rejecting divine promptings which would have led us toward grace and away from sin, toward the faith and the truth, even into the Church for those outside of the Church. We won't know how often we did this till the next world when we will see it clearl
I think it is called material sin
MATERIALLY EVIL
Definition
Something that is objectively a moral evil, and therefore sinful, but a person does it either without knowing it is wrong, or under duress and without internal consent to the evil.
..
-
1) Theologians theorize for a living, they use to theorize among themselves in seminaries as professors and students, where they were given all kinds of leeway in their "ivory towers". However, in the late 1800's that changed and they started theorizing to the laity, to the masses, and today the theories are legion. Look at the theory of salvation of the Indians by belief in a god that rewards made possible by their invincible ignorance (=they could not be reached by man, priests did not even know they existed), so they say, the theory went nowhere for almost 300 years, no laity even heard of it, till it was foisted upon the faithful in the early 20th century.
2) I do not get the impression that dogmas meant the same to those theologians like it does to us today since Vatican I defined papal infallibility.
I never considered your #1 but that sounds somewhat feasible. Yet there are some theologians who apparently believed in their own theories enough to pass them off as authentic teachings of the Church - and not only did no one say anything, instead, many of these theories were (and still are) accepted as though they are authentic or approved teachings of the Church, even by learned priests and other theologians.
That's a tough pill to swallow sometimes.
-
That's a tough pill to swallow sometimes.
Indeed, it is a tough pill to swallow. We have always relied on our priests to teach us true doctrine. It is such a tough pill to swallow that it is like trusting the surgeon to know what he is doing when he operates only to find you are worse off after the operation.
-
Here was Fr. Hesse’s view on BOD (He agreed with St. Thomas Aquinas):
https://youtu.be/jRoh0Pn_Gy8 (https://youtu.be/jRoh0Pn_Gy8)
-
Here was Fr. Hesse’s view on BOD (He agreed with St. Thomas Aquinas):
https://youtu.be/jRoh0Pn_Gy8 (https://youtu.be/jRoh0Pn_Gy8)
Around the 57 second mark he says that Trent says: "...Nobody can be saved unless he received the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit...the thing itself, or in the votum of doing it..."
The problem with this is, this is not what Trent says.
In all the translations I've ever seen, Trent quite clearly condemns with anathema anyone who says that without the sacrament or without the desire (votum) thereof, man cannot obtain the grace of justification.
After listening to dozens of his talks on the internet, this and one other thing I know of that he says regarding ignorance he has wrong. Other than those two things, from what I've listened to, he teaches orthodox Catholicism.
-
This is PRECISELY the emotional theology that inspired the Jesuits to invent "Rewarder God" theory.
But is it? Does God not provide all men what is necessary for salvation?
If therefore, you think explicit faith in some doctrines is required, how is the person who lived in the wilderness provided what is necessary? Some of you appear to be saying something close to predestination to damnation.
If that person in the wilderness cooperates with the graces God provides, we should hold that God would also provide some way to know the required doctrines, whether that be through internal revelation, or some miracle like a saint bilocating to the person.
#2 is Pelagianism, making salvation attainable ex opere operantis
Is it pelagian for a person to cooperate with - or not place obstacles to - grace? "Sincerity in seeking the truth" is a grace.
#3 rejects 1500+ years of unquestioned unanimous Tradition, using a distinction that was explicitly condemned by the Holy Office in 1703
Even granting the statement of the holy office (though EENSers ignore the Holy Office regarding Fr. Feeney), it doesn't have to use that distinction. Belief in God who rewards implicitly includes the will to do all that God requires, and so implicitly includes baptism. Baptism is still necessary by a necessity of means, in re aut voto.
In the end, this is a mystery, and it makes no difference to someone who IS Catholic, and already baptized.
-
But is it? Does God not provide all men what is necessary for salvation?
If therefore, you think explicit faith in some doctrines is required, how is the person who lived in the wilderness provided what is necessary? Some of you appear to be saying something close to predestination to damnation.
You have a flawed idea of God and predestination. In your world a man is born by chance and dies by chance in a place and time where God could not reach him. In my world a person is born and dies in a place and time exactly as chosen by God, before he even created the world:
If a person was truly just in the eyes of God, and thus one of the elect, he would have been born in a time and place where he could find everything he needs for his salvation. So, what is there to speculate about? The problem with the people who do not accept the dogmas on EENS as they are written, is that they think that God has to invent some other way to save people because "His EENS system does not work for every case as it is written.".
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words even before the world was even created, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul. Nobody is born or dies in a time and place not chosen by God.
-
Around the 57 second mark he says that Trent says: "...Nobody can be saved unless he received the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit...the thing itself, or in the votum of doing it..."
The problem with this is, this is not what Trent says.
In all the translations I've ever seen, Trent quite clearly condemns with anathema anyone who says that without the sacrament or without the desire (votum) thereof, man cannot obtain the grace of justification.
After listening to dozens of his talks on the internet, this and one other thing I know of that he says regarding ignorance he has wrong. Other than those two things, from what I've listened to, he teaches orthodox Catholicism.
Thanks for the correction, Stubborn. Could you provide the quotations that you’re referring to? I’m thinking about putting them to the video description to help clear up this misunderstanding to the viewers.
-
Thanks for the correction, Stubborn. Could you provide the quotations that you’re referring to? I’m thinking about putting them to the video description to help clear up this misunderstanding to the viewers.
Sure, Session 7, Canon 4:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and [if anyone saith] 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.
-
If that person in the wilderness cooperates with the graces God provides,
Maybe God put that person in the wilderness because He knew, from all eternity, that he would NOT cooperate with God's graces...
.
Just because you can create a hypothetical "virtuous native" doesn't mean they exist. We know from history that REAL LIFE virtuous natives existed, which is why people like Eric the Red, Columbus and all the other Europeans travelled far distances to try to bring them the Faith. We also know that when these explorers arrived in SOME (but not many) villages, they were surprised to find the natives having already been instructed in the Faith by miraculous means (i.e. bi-locating saints). So, we know from history that God does work miracles, but He also does so through HUMAN means.
.
We also know that God sent St Padre Pio, by way of bi-location, to hear confessions of dying men and also to baptize infants in danger of death. God does not suspend the HUMAN ELEMENTS of the sacraments (i.e. water) but He will provide them miraculously (as when St Patrick raised a dead man to life to baptize him).
.
BOD, which has never been proven scientifically, nor with any concrete examples, undercuts and minimizes the REAL LIFE MIRACLES that God has worked all throughout history.
-
Maybe God put that person in the wilderness because He knew, from all eternity, that he would NOT cooperate with God's graces...
Or perhaps God put that person in the wilderness because He knew, from all eternity, that in those circuмstances he would cooperate with grace, but had he been born surrounded by bad Catholics, he would have been led astray?
And I mentioned bilocation of saints in my previous post.
You have a flawed idea of God and predestination. In your world a man is born by chance and dies by chance in a place and time where God could not reach him. In my world a person is born and dies in a place and time exactly as chosen by God, before he even created the world:
Did I ever say a man is born in a place by chance?
Your response appears to me to suggest predestination to damnation. Is that what you think? Perhaps your idea is flawed?
Does or does not God provide all men what is necessary for salvation?
Again, I think some of the posters here do not really see where BOD people are coming from. It's not "emotional" theology, but reason applied to Revelation.
-
Or perhaps God put that person in the wilderness because He knew, from all eternity, that in those circuмstances he would cooperate with grace, but had he been born surrounded by bad Catholics, he would have been led astray?
Point is that it's speculation, and that's not how Catholics do theology. You can't go on "perhaps" this or "perhaps" that. This is precisely the "vortex of confusion" St. Augustine warned about when he rejected Baptism of Desire. Grace is grace, i.e. it's a perfectly free undeserved gift. We are never in a position to know what graces someone should or should NOT receive, since absolutely none if it is owed to anyone.
We merely go by: God has revealed x, y, and z. Church teaches that a, b, and c are compatible or incompatible with Revelation. That's it.
-
Again, I think some of the posters here do not really see where BOD people are coming from. It's not "emotional" theology, but reason applied to Revelation.
Nonsense. There has never been a single demonstration by way of syllogism that Baptism of Desire is revealed by God. 2/3 of the small handful of Church Fathers who even mentioned the subject REJECTED it. There's no proof that it's revealed. Nor has anyone ever demonstrated that BoD derives from Church doctrine.
St. Augustine and St. Gregory nαzιanzen admitted that BoD speculation originated in emotional considerations. People saw various apparently devout catechumens who happened to die before Baptism, whereas other soundrels appeared to postpone Baptism precisely so that they could continue on in their sin and then got baptized on their deathbed. This led to an emotional reaction of this being "unfair". St. Augustine rejected this emotional theology as leading to a "vortex of confusion" and warned that anyone who "wish[es] to remain Catholic" must reject this thinking.
St. Robert Bellarmine believed that catechumens (and catechumens only) could be saved by Desire. Reason he gave? Because the contrary "would seem too harsh." That's it.
There's no solid theology behind Baptism of Desire. It's pure speculation, made up in response to various emotional considerations. That's just simple fact.
Let's take a couple posts back. You're claiming that BoD derives from the assertion that God gives every person a chance at salvation. Please construct a syllogism to prove your conclusion.
How about the unbaptized infant who dies without Baptism? Did God give that infant a "chance at salvation"? Hmmm. You have absolutely NO idea what God has given and what God has not given to any particular individual, whether born among the Native Americans in the year 500 or in a Catholic family in the year 1200. None. You absolutely cannot draw theological conclusions from your speculation about what God SHOULD provide based on your imaginary scenarios.
Here's your implied syllogism:
Major: God gives every human being what is necessary for salvation.
Minor: If God does not allow BoD, then some souls would be deprived of what would be necessary for salvation.
Conclusion: BoD happens.
Your Minor is nonsense and based on pure speculation.
Your Major must be distinguished. Did God give an unbaptized infant who dies at the age of 3 a chance at salvation?
BTW, part of the CATHOLIC teaching of predestination holds that sometimes God will WITHHOLD graces because He knows that they will be rejected and would in fact lead to greater eternal suffering for the person they would have been offered to.
-
There's no solid theology behind Baptism of Desire. It's pure speculation, made up in response to various emotional considerations. That's just simple fact.
God wills the salvation of all men, and as a corollary, God grants all men sufficient grace for salvation, provided no obstacles on our part.
Statements like these are found in most books on Catholic theology of grace and salvation. Are these "emotional considerations", or Catholic theological reflection on Revelation? Or both?
You apparently think explicit faith in some doctrines is necessary. Well, God provides what is necessary for salvation as stated above. So if that person in the wilderness cooperates with the graces God provides, we should hold that God would also provide some way to know the required doctrines, whether that be through internal revelation or external teaching, including some miracle like a saint bilocating to the person.
Would you disagree with that?
How about the unbaptized infant who dies without Baptism?
It's like you're giving the objections in the Summa and presenting them as arguments, ignoring the replies.
You do know the answer to this one, right?
-
I'll grant the unbaptized infant throws me for a bit of a loop. Mind, not the unbaptized infant in a Christian land, I think it makes sense to some extent that a child below the age of reason would be dependent in some way on all things, including access to grace, on their parents. That shows just how serious the sacraments are.
But yeah... what about the child of a Native American in 1000 AD? I will admit that kind of threw me for a loop. I, and Stanley, would've argued that the Native American at least theoretically has some possibility of salvation (leaving aside whether or not any such people actually cooperate with the graces to attain it) but what about the children?
And I mean that in light of the argumentation of Stanley above, not as a mere appeal to emotion
-
You apparently think explicit faith in some doctrines is necessary.
What do you mean I think? This is the unanimous teaching of the Church. No one at the age of reason can have a merely infused faith. Only dispute is whether it suffices to explicitly believe in God, that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked, or else whether someone must also explicitly believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. This is not my personal opinion or something I made up.
-
I'll grant the unbaptized infant throws me for a bit of a loop. Mind, not the unbaptized infant in a Christian land, I think it makes sense to some extent that a child below the age of reason would be dependent in some way on all things, including access to grace, on their parents. That shows just how serious the sacraments are.
But yeah... what about the child of a Native American in 1000 AD? I will admit that kind of threw me for a loop. I, and Stanley, would've argued that the Native American at least theoretically has some possibility of salvation (leaving aside whether or not any such people actually cooperate with the graces to attain it) but what about the children?
And I mean that in light of the argumentation of Stanley above, not as a mere appeal to emotion
This condition is based on the Catholic doctrine of predestination based on God's foreknowledge ... post praevisa merita. God foresees that certain souls would reject certain graces and therefore withholds them ... out of mercy. Had these graces been presented to them and rejected, it would have caused them eternal suffering.
There's another Catholic school of thought, the ante praevisa merita school, but I agree with the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article that it's difficult to reconcile with God's will that all would be saved ... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)
In fact, this ante praevisa merita school clearly holds that God predestines some to be damned and that they most certainly do NOT have an "opportunity" for salvation.
God WILLS that all men be saved, but this notion that everyone has an active opportunity at salvation is a made up principle and not Catholic doctrine. Again, it's a made-up principle rooted in emotion. If you follow the rigorist school (to which even St. Thomas belonged), there are certain souls who have absolutely no chance at salvation, and this is pre-ordained from eternity without any regard to future merits.
You should read the entire articled linked to above about the Catholic notion of predestination.
-
In other words, this principle that God WILLS the salvation of all DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO God gives every soul the actual grace required to be saved. It translates into God WOULD give every soul the actual grace required to be saved if that souls would want them. This is yet another example of a fabricated theological principle. It just "sounds good".
-
By the way, some theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, believed that God's will for the salvation of all extends only to His elect:
Did God sincerely and earnestly will the salvation also of the little ones who, without fault of their own, fail to receive the baptism of water or blood and are thus forever deprived of the beatific vision? Only a few theologians (e.g. Bellarmine, Vasquez) are bold enough to answer this question in the negative.
Of course, most theologians disagree with them.
Nevertheless, the principle is only that God WILLS and STANDS READY TO GIVE (as it were) to every man the grace necessary for salvation. But if He foresees that it will be rejected, God can withhold the grace out of mercy. Let's say I have $20 that I desire to give give to a homeless person. I suddenly receive the gift of foreknowledge that the homeless person will spend it on drugs that will cause him to overdose and die. Do I still give him that $20? I WANTED to give him the money, and I WOULD have ... had I not foreknown the consequences. So out of mercy to this person, I do not give him the money. In fact, it would be a great act of cruelty to give him the money given that foreknowledge. And someone without this gift of foreknowledge might accuse me of being selfish and stingy. And of course God foreknows everything. Is it not a great act of mercy by God to allow an infant to die without Baptism and enjoy eternal natural happiness in Limbo rather than to allow him to damn himself?
-
By the way, some theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, believed that God's will for the salvation of all extends only to His elect:
Of course, most theologians disagree with them.
Nevertheless, the principle is only that God WILLS and STANDS READY TO GIVE (as it were) to every man the grace necessary for salvation. But if He foresees that it will be rejected, God can withhold the grace out of mercy. Let's say I have $20 that I desire to give give to a homeless person. I suddenly receive the gift of foreknowledge that the homeless person will spend it on drugs that will cause him to overdose and die. Do I still give him that $20? I WANTED to give him the money, and I WOULD have ... had I not foreknown the consequences. So out of mercy to this person, I do not give him the money. In fact, it would be a great act of cruelty to give him the money given that foreknowledge. And someone without this gift of foreknowledge might accuse me of being selfish and stingy. And of course God foreknows everything. Is it not a great act of mercy by God to allow an infant to die without Baptism and enjoy eternal natural happiness in Limbo rather than to allow him to damn himself?
Well, your $20, like Heaven, is not something that anyone deserves. It's a gift, and can be revoked at will. God creating a soul that didn't get a chance to (potentially) make it to Heaven is fine. But it's Him creating a soul that never had a chance of not being damned that doesn't seem to me like something an infinitely just and merciful God would do. A man in America in 33 AD never had a chance to convert - and it seems impossible that every Native American for 1500 years deserved to be banned, but then in 1500 suddenly some started being worthy of the gift of faith and salvation.
-
But it's Him creating a soul that never had a chance of not being damned that doesn't seem to me like something an infinitely just and merciful God would do.
And here we have BoDism in a nutshell ... "doesn't seem to me like something an infinitely just and merciful God would do."
Please read the discussion of Catholic predestination. Why did God create ANY souls that He foreknew would end up in hell? Lots of people claim that a merciful God would not do that either. You can emote all you want, but that's not theology. It leads to what St. Augustine characterized as a "vortex of confusion."
God has created millions upon millions of souls that He knew would end up in Hell. Why? It's a mystery. According to Catholic predestination, these didn't "have a chance" either.
In any case, to repeat, ad nauseam now, if God withholds graces for salvation from someone, it could simply be because He foreknew that he would not accept the grace and would merely be punished more for it. This is not very difficult. Certainly your man in America in A.D. 33 would have had a much worse eternal fate if he had been born in late Medieval Europe and had left the Church to become a Protestant. Or remained an atheist despite being born into a Catholic society. Nobody cares what you THINK or what you FEEL or what SEEMS to you to be fair or merciful or just. We only care about what the Catholic Church teaches that God has revealed.
-
By the way, some theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, believed that God's will for the salvation of all extends only to His elect:
Did God sincerely and earnestly will the salvation also of the little ones who, without fault of their own, fail to receive the baptism of water or blood and are thus forever deprived of the beatific vision? Only a few theologians (e.g. Bellarmine, Vasquez) are bold enough to answer this question in the negative.
Of course, most theologians disagree with them.
Something close to the quoted box was condemned with the Jansenists, so it's not surprising most theologians land somewhere else.
In any case, to repeat, ad nauseam now, if God withholds graces for salvation from someone, it could simply be because He foreknew that he would not accept the grace and would merely be punished more for it.
And that's your speculation. You rejected speculation of others.
Something like this is a common statement in Catholic theology:
God grants all men sufficient grace for salvation, provided no obstacles on our part.
Why do you spend so much energy arguing against this?
Take note of the "no obstacles" part. So long as a person cooperates with grace, no obstacles, but when the person doesn't, that's an obstacle. And for all we know, that may be the common lot of those living in the wilderness. That should address just about everything you said.
But if someone living in the wilderness is saved, that doesn't have to violate EENS. It may in some formulations, but it doesn't have to.
-
Why do you spend so much energy arguing against this?
Because it's just plain wrong. God does not grant the necessary graces for salvation to everyone ... and one only need to point to the example of infants who die without Baptism. You later spun it to say, God grants the graces to prevent damnation. But, as it stands, the statement is not correct.
How difficult is this? God will sometimes withhold grace based on His foreknowledge that it'll be rejected. You base your BoDism on a completely false premise.
Besides that, you reject the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. If there were a well disposed soul, say in the year 400 in the Americas, living in a jungle, if that person had the proper dispositions, God would either by an internal inspiration communicate to the soul that which must be believed or else, even miraculously, send someone to preach the truth. Are you not aware of the travels of Mary of Agreda to the Americas? This teaching of St. Thomas is based on the undisputed Catholic teaching that SOME THINGS MUST BE EXPLICITLY BELIEVED in order to have supernatural faith. No Catholic theologian has ever disputed this (until Bergoglio started babbling about how atheists could be saved). The fact that you question this tells me everything I need to know about your position. You're basically a Pelagian, man.
-
But yeah... what about the child of a Native American in 1000 AD? I will admit that kind of threw me for a loop. I, and Stanley, would've argued that the Native American at least theoretically has some possibility of salvation (leaving aside whether or not any such people actually cooperate with the graces to attain it) but what about the children?
"The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation".- Num 14:18
It is up to the children to remove the sins and to come back to the faith, then hand down the faith down to their children, who in turn do the same, and so on. That's just the way it works. We are talking about the sins of the fathers being the loss of faith.
For example, consider all of those Catholics who lost the faith to become Lutherans in the 1500s, well here we are 500 years later and the sins of those parents are still being handed down to their children, who, as Scripture says, in turn will continue to do the same - until the children come back to the faith. God put the responsibility of corresponding with grace and breaking the cycle upon the children themselves, certainly in some cases the parents, but primarily it is up to the children.
The fate of the Native American child is a result of the sins of his parents, and their parents, and their parents etc.
-
God creating a soul that didn't get a chance to (potentially) make it to Heaven is fine. But it's Him creating a soul that never had a chance of not being damned
You just contradicted yourself.
.
Not Heaven = Hell. You said you accepted the former, while rejecting the latter. Except the former and the latter are equal. ??
.
Secondly, "being damned" is not the same for all people. If God created 1,000s of native American Indians who never knew the Faith, and so did not make it to heaven, that doesn't mean they suffer hell-fire for all eternity. Give God Almighty some credit here! He's not sadistic! Just because they didn't make it to heaven, doesn't mean they didn't go to Limbo and have a nice, peaceful eternity, which most Indians would consider "heaven" since they worshipped nature anyways.
.
Hell for Stalin <not equal to> Hell for a native American.
-
You're basically a Pelagian, man.
Really? I am? That's quite a judgement to make. Are you sure of that?
I have not said what I believe or don't believe on this issue.
You, on the other hand, reject a common statement in Catholic theology, and have clearly stated so.
-
Really? I am? That's quite a judgement to make. Are you sure of that?
I have not said what I believe or don't believe on this issue.
You, on the other hand, reject a common statement in Catholic theology, and have clearly stated so.
It's based on your own principles as you have articulated on this thread. I have rejected no Catholic teaching whatsoever. I love how anti-EENS Pelagians accuse others of error and being at odds with Catholic theology.
-
A man in America in 33 AD never had a chance to convert - and it seems impossible that every Native American for 1500 years deserved to be banned, but then in 1500 suddenly some started being worthy of the gift of faith and salvation.
First off, let's 'fact check' your statements above:
.
1. In 33AD Christ told the Apostles to "go and preach to ALL nations". This would've included America. The Apostles bi-located and worked all sorts of miracles and they didn't go to America? God left an entire continent alone? No, God sent the Apostles everywhere, even America.
.
2. The 1500s did not start the preaching of the Faith to America. Ever heard of Eric the Red, who sailed to America in the 900s (I think)? This is recorded history. Then we have Blessed Mary of Agreda who bi-located to teach certain tribes the Faith. What other saints did so in the past? Surely more events like this happened.
.
3. How many "good, God-loving" Indians even existed? Just watch 30 minutes of the secular, anti-Catholic and famous docuмentary of Ken Burns on the American West. Almost all tribes at the time were warring against one another. Their entire culture revolved around war, fighting for animals, and power. Doesn't sound like they were following the natural law at all.
.
Then the Spanish arrive to preach the Faith, and the Indians had access to horses and what did they do with this blessing from God? They used horses to attack MORE villages, and to go all across the country to invade, plunder, pillage and kill. Most of the Indians were savage beasts. Their religion was power. Only a very, very small few tribes even allowed the Europeans to talk with them about the Faith. Most missionaries avoided 90% of the tribes for fear of instant death.
.
And God is evil because He didn't give these savages (to use the term in the most violent way) an opportunity at the Faith? Good grief! Lord forgive us for doubting your Goodness! Learn some history man. And pray for wisdom to understand God's Divine Providence, who created all men and knew their souls from all eternity.
-
I love how anti-EENS Pelagians accuse others of error and being at odds with Catholic theology.
Do you also love how you accuse others of error and being at odds with Catholic theology?
-
(a) God wills the salvation of all men, and as a corollary, (b) God grants all men sufficient grace for salvation, provided no obstacles on our part.
Statements like these are found in most books on Catholic theology of grace and salvation.
Stanley, both of your statements above are correct. Both are Catholic thinking. The problem is that you are suggesting that such theology is measurable by the human mind or the naked eye. Only God knows what the "obstacles" are; only He knows who will or will not accept grace. And since He would know if a man would reject graces at the age of 70 on his deathbed, so God, in His infinite wisdom, many NOT give the graces to begin with to the same man in his 20s. Ergo, this man would live his entire life and according to you, "God didn't give him a chance to know the Faith", when in fact, God knew that this man would reject it, so His mercy did not provide it.
.
Salvation is a mystery. We cannot understand the mind of our neighbor to any degree. Certainly we cannot know the mind of God. Lord have mercy on us for trying!
-
Stanley, both of your statements above are correct. Both are Catholic thinking. The problem is that you are suggesting that such theology is measurable by the human mind or the naked eye. Only God knows what the "obstacles" are; only He knows who will or will not accept grace. And since He would know if a man would reject graces at the age of 70 on his deathbed, so God, in His infinite wisdom, many NOT give the graces to begin with to the same man in his 20s. Ergo, this man would live his entire life and according to you, "God didn't give him a chance to know the Faith", when in fact, God knew that this man would reject it, so His mercy did not provide it.
.
Salvation is a mystery. We cannot understand the mind of our neighbor to any degree. Certainly we cannot know the mind of God. Lord have mercy on us for trying!
No, his statement (b) is not correct. God WILLS to grant the graces sufficient for salvation, but He does not always do so. If He in his foreknowledge knows that the grace will be wasted, then He may withhold it as an act of mercy. Thus is the case, for instance, with the infants who die unbaptized. There is no Catholic doctrine which states that God actually does grant every soul the graces sufficient for salvation. It's made up and is yet another example of emotional "theology". Another way some Catholic sources describe it is that God STANDS READY to grant sufficient graces. As you say, it's a mystery. To some God grants MORE than sufficient graces. To some God grants the graces sufficient for salvation, but to others He grants the graces necessary for salvation over and above what is sufficient. This is all tied together, as I mentioned, with Catholic predestination theology. Even the greatest Catholic minds disagree violently ... to the point that the Church had to make peace between the Thomists and the Molinists, for example. This is in fact one of the greatest mysteries of the faith.
On top of that, BoDers jump to the conclusion that in order for God to grant sufficient grace, He MUST make BoD available to people. That is yet another unwarranted logical leap.
-
Do you also love how you accuse others of error and being at odds with Catholic theology?
I have no problem calling you out for Pelagianism, since that it precisely what you're promoting with your posts. Whether or not you are a formal heretic is between you and God, and I in fact presume that you are not; nevertheless, the objective truth is clear, and I am not going to let your heretical statements go unchallenged.
-
No, his statement (b) is not correct. God WILLS to grant the graces sufficient for salvation, but He does not always do so. If He in his foreknowledge knows that the grace will be wasted, then He may withhold it as an act of mercy.
Well, he would argue that his phrase "provided there are no obstacles" is similar to what you would call "God's foreknowledge that graces would be wasted". So, I can see how both your statements are similar. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
.
The problem is that then he (like many others) forgets the "obstacles" part, which is free will, and they blame God for placing a "good willed native" on some remote island. They, only being able to judge the externals, suppose that circuмstance is "unfair", and forget that they cannot see the interior nature of man, and that this "good willed native" may not, in fact, be good willed at all. This native may have MANY "obstacles" to grace, due to his fallen nature, which no one would know except he and God. But instead of assuming that the native is bad, they assume God is bad for not "giving Him a chance". This thinking is so close to blasphemy that I shudder.
-
Well, he would argue that his phrase "provided there are no obstacles" is similar to what you would call "God's foreknowledge that graces would be wasted".
No, that's not what he was saying and not how he was using the phrase ... which is why we're arguing. He's using this as a premise to demonstrate the possibility of BoD. #1) the premise is incorrect, and #2) as I indicated in the last post, there's a logical leap to conclude from this premise that there must be BoD.
-
...This is all tied together, as I mentioned, with Catholic predestination theology. Even the greatest Catholic minds disagree violently ... to the point that the Church had to make peace between the Thomists and the Molinists, for example. This is in fact one of the greatest mysteries of the faith.
Isn't that the root of the BOD debate? It's the old Thomist vs Molinist debate re-ignited in a slightly different form, right? But it seems to me that there is no need to drag the EENS doctrine into the debate. There could be BOD without any necessity of calling into question the literal meaning of EENS. All the hand-wringing over North and South American natives is a mis-direction. If they were so good, instead of bringing them directly to Heaven, God could first give them the opportunity to enter the Church. Problem solved.
I've heard of miraculous evangelizations of pagan peoples but I've never heard of the Church canonizing a pagan who died outside the Church. If it were possible, don't you think God would have given us a sign that it had actually happened? Instead God gave us the literal meaning of EENS.
And the thing that's really annoying is that unless one adopts a position that is explicitly contrary to the literal meaning of EENS, one will be labeled a "Feeneyite". There is one other way to avoid being labeled a Feeneyite, and that is to loudly proclaim your hatred for Feeneyites. Ironically, Fr Feeney never denied BOD. So that tells you that BOD isn't really what they want. They want everyone to deny the EENS dogma. What spirit is that coming from?
-
Laddy, you should stop telling me what I believe, or what I have forgotten. I haven't said, and you don't know.
I have no problem calling you out for Pelagianism, since that it precisely what you're promoting with your posts. Whether or not you are a formal heretic is between you and God, and I in fact presume that you are not; nevertheless, the objective truth is clear, and I am not going to let your heretical statements go unchallenged.
Oh really?
Pope Pius IX wrote in "Quanto conficiamur moerore" (1863)
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm
I guess Pope Pius IX was a Pelagian and a heretic, according to some rascal on the internet.
-
Pope Pius IX wrote in "Quanto conficiamur moerore" (1863)https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm
I guess Pope Pius IX was a Pelagian and a heretic, according to some rascal on the internet.
That would line up with St Thomas and St Alphonsus. But neither of them believed that those who die outside the Church could be saved. St Thomas said specifically said that those who are not guilty of personal sins would be instructed in the faith before death. But there is no evidence that those who died without the faith have ever been saved.
-
Food for thought:
It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.
- Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, 1907
-
Food for thought:
- Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, 1907
I actually find the question of Confucius a bit interesting. Not that I think Confucius himself should have gone to Abraham's Bosom, but I always thought it was possible for virtuous pagans to reach it. But this quote seems to suggest that only Jews went there. In centuries prior to that quote, many saints voiced their hopes that certain virtuous pagans of the B.C were saved - so did the Church eventually rule against this, or what's the story? I certainly never heard of any such ruling.
I think it's likely here that there was a misunderstanding, with the Vatican believing Confucius died in the AD. Because, while it makes sense to ban people from affirming that he was saved, the second sentence that we must affirm that those who die as infidels are damned doesn't seem to be relevant to the issue of someone who died under the Old Covenant.
-
Pope Pius IX wrote in "Quanto conficiamur moerore" (1863)https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
I am not sure what it is you are quoting QCM about here, but I think perhaps you should place the emphasis on the part I bolded. When understood in context, the bolded part agrees with the italicized, otherwise the whole quote will be understood as being self contradictory.
In bold, the pope is teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church, he goes onto to speak of those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our holy religion.
He is saying those who are ignorant as regards the true faith and Church, but are struggling to find out as they strive to live virtuously, WILL come to the knowledge of the truth via the divine light. After that, they must cooperate with grace, and if they do that and choose to enter into the Church, are then ABLE TO (not will) attain eternal life.
That is the purpose of "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace", it is to lead them into the Church, lest they "arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity, which belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching".
-
Ah, here we go again, a staunch BoDer emotionally invested in his position trying to make Pius IX into a Pelagian by misinterpreting his teaching. There's no arguing with the likes of Stanley N ... since he's dead set on having non-Catholics be saved. Nothing will convince him that there's no salvation outside the Church. You can tell when you have someone who has already arrived at that conclusion and has become emotionally invested in it, and will try to stat spamming in one justification after another as each is successively debunked.
-
Ah, here we go again, a staunch BoDer emotionally invested in his position trying to make Pius IX into a Pelagian by misinterpreting his teaching. There's no arguing with the likes of Stanley N ... since he's dead set on having non-Catholics be saved. Nothing will convince him that there's no salvation outside the Church. You can tell when you have someone who has already arrived at that conclusion and has become emotionally invested in it, and will try to stat spamming in one justification after another as each is successively debunked.
LOL.
Projection much, laddy?
-
He is saying those who are ignorant as regards the true faith and Church, but are struggling to find out as they strive to live virtuously, WILL come to the knowledge of the truth via the divine light. After that, they must cooperate with grace, and if they do that and choose to enter into the Church, are then ABLE TO (not will) attain eternal life.
That is the purpose of "the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace", it is to lead them into the Church, lest they "arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity, which belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching".
I know you go by "stubborn", but please reread the quoted paragraph from Pius IX. If the Pope wanted to say your interpretation, he could have said so quite clearly. On the other hand, what he actually said is rather like a BOD formulation.
-
I know you go by "stubborn", but please reread the quoted paragraph from Pius IX. If the Pope wanted to say your interpretation, he could have said so quite clearly. On the other hand, what he actually said is rather like a BOD formulation.
No YOU re-read it, but in context.
Right before your italicized text, the pope says what you are attempting to do, which is to believe that it is "possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity", which he literally says is a belief which "is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching".
You likely missed that part, which is why I put emphasis on it with bold text thinking you couldn't miss it.
Further, immediately after your italicized text, the pope goes on to say:
8. "Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior".
In order for you to understand it as you apparently do, you have to take the text you italicized completely and totally out of context. You have to completely ignore as if never written at all, everything that he says immediately before and immediately after the text you italicized. You managed to take what is talking about, namely, that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and turned it into an altogether meaningless formula.
Now the only question I have for you is, why do you do that rather than simply understanding it in the context he taught it?
-
We have explained the Pius IX quote 50 times already. I grow weary of the nonsense. Stanley decides to interpret it to mean that no explicit belief is required for salvation ... against Catholic doctrine. Pius IX simply says that the invincibly ignorant will 1) not be punished for the sin of infidelity ... as per St. Thomas and 2) will be led by divine LIGHT and grace ultimately to their salvation ... if they place no obstacles in the way. Ignorance is not salvific, but merely exculpatory. To make lack of actual sin = salvation is nothing other than pure Pelagianism.
-
We have explained the Pius IX quote 50 times already. I grow weary of the nonsense. Stanley decides to interpret it to mean that no explicit belief is required for salvation ... against Catholic doctrine. Pius IX simply says that the invincibly ignorant will 1) not be punished for the sin of infidelity ... as per St. Thomas and 2) will be led by divine LIGHT and grace ultimately to their salvation ... if they place no obstacles in the way. Ignorance is not salvific, but merely exculpatory. To make lack of actual sin = salvation is nothing other than pure Pelagianism.
Nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. You keep putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
Why would you do that Laddy?
Why do you "discuss" using insults? Why do you reject Catholic theologians?
Ah, but this seems to be the way of the self-proclaimed "trad" layperson "theologian".
May God have mercy on you.
-
Now the only question I have for you is, why do you do that rather than simply understanding it in the context he taught it?
This isn't personal, you must realize. What my views are not at issue here.
The anti BOD arguments I've seen here are so trivial, and have been so often addressed, that I think some of you just don't understand the opposition. Outside some very liberal ideas, Pre-V2 BOD had no problem whatsoever with the decree from the council of Florence, and no problem with EENS. What I'm trying to do is help you at least understand that.
Can you not read that passage - yes, in context - in the way a holder of BOD would?
-
Can you not read that passage - yes, in context - in the way a holder of BOD would?
Stanley, how does one who is invincibly ignorant of the Faith (and by extension, baptism), desire it?
-
This isn't personal, you must realize. What my views are not at issue here.
The anti BOD arguments I've seen here are so trivial, and have been so often addressed, that I think some of you just don't understand the opposition. Outside some very liberal ideas, Pre-V2 BOD had no problem whatsoever with the decree from the council of Florence, and no problem with EENS. What I'm trying to do is help you at least understand that.
I agree the arguments are tired and old, and I understand the view of this whole matter from the perspective of the opposition, that it is puzzling in that they either do not see the obvious contradiction that a BOD is to the dogma EENS as well as other teachings of the Church and other pertinent points of faith, or, they willfully reject the dogma and the other points of faith in order to cling to a BOD - all the while insisting they are doing no such thing, or insisting they do so because, of all things, that's what the Church teaches.
Can you not read that passage - yes, in context - in the way a holder of BOD would?
I do read it in context and explained what it means when read in context - because I do understand quite clearly that the BODers not only do not read it in context, they absolutely refuse to read it in context.
The only possible way to understand the italicized text as him saying that for the invincibly ignorant, there is salvation outside of the Church at all, is to lift the text you italicized completely out of context, just as if the two explicit affirmations citing EENS which that text is sandwiched between does not exist. Once taken out of context, one must then deliberately mistranslate it to say salvation is certain, or all but certain for the invincibly ignorant - as if it is a built-in and automatic exception to the dogma EENS that the pope is teaching us about.
-
Look, I'm tired of the anti-EENSers hiding behind BoD. This discussion is not about BoD. It's about whether those lacking supernatural Catholic faith can be saved. If someone wants to theorize that a catechumen who dies before Baptism can be saved, they can go right ahead. What's at issue is the claim that infidels (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.), heretics, and schismatics can be saved. That is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of defined dogma.
-
Can you not read that passage - yes, in context - in the way a holder of BOD would?
Stanley, your problem is that you're not reading that entire section through the lens of Trent. Trent clearly taught what is required in preparation for baptism, and in preparation for justification - all of these requirements also apply in order to receive BOD.
.
You're reading Piux IX through the lens of modernism. This is where you fall into Pelagianism. Of all the various mentions of BOD (saints, popes, councils), Trent is the highest authority which mentions it. So if you ignore Trent's explanation of who BOD applies to, you're going to be led into error by the many modernist/heretical ideals which have tried to (and have been mostly successful in) watering down Trent.
-
The Pius IX quote seems to be about adult limbo. If he meant that those who are invincibly ignorant but virtuous would just be converted, he'd have said so. Instead, he said that those who are invincibly ignorant but follow the natural law will not suffer eternal punishment. That's about as directly referring to limbo as you can get.
Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.
It quite clearly says here that they attain eternal life by observing natural law and its precepts. Not that they are converted in return for that. Once again, he's referring to these people as the invincibly ignorant - if they converted they would no longer be ignorant at all and the main descriptor which he is using to describe them would no longer be relevant, so it makes no sense whatsoever that he would neglect to mention that they would be converted. He does however mention that they are "ready to obey God" - which seems to refer to the idea that they must believe in a "God that rewards".
Anyway, the fact that this quote is purely fallible aside, it seems twisting his words to read them as being about conversion. He'd surely have said as much.
-
The Pius IX quote seems to be about adult limbo. If he meant that those who are invincibly ignorant but virtuous would just be converted, he'd have said so. Instead, he said that those who are invincibly ignorant but follow the natural law will not suffer eternal punishment. That's about as directly referring to limbo as you can get.
It quite clearly says here that they attain eternal life by observing natural law and its precepts. Not that they are converted in return for that. Once again, he's referring to these people as the invincibly ignorant - if they converted they would no longer be ignorant at all and the main descriptor which he is using to describe them would no longer be relevant, so it makes no sense whatsoever that he would neglect to mention that they would be converted. He does however mention that they are "ready to obey God" - which seems to refer to the idea that they must believe in a "God that rewards".
Anyway, the fact that this quote is purely fallible aside, it seems twisting his words to read them as being about conversion. He'd surely have said as much.
Did you not see this part?: " by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".
They must be enlightened from their ignorance. Someone who is ignorant of the truths necessary for supernatural faith ... cannot have supernatural faith. To claim that someone can be saved by the exercise of natural virtue alone ... without being enlightened with supernatural faith is both heretical on its own and heretical because it's implicit Pelagianism. Your interpretation would make a heretic of Pius IX.
This teaching is almost word for word the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that those such as these can be saved ... because God will either directly enLIGHTEN them regarding the truths that must be known for salvation or else will send a preacher to them. In no way can they be saved without said enlightenment, as per Pius IX's "by the efficacious virtue of divine light".
Father Feeney wrote a lengthy article about how Pius IX learned of how people were interpreting this quote and was shocked.
I'm so weary of the armchair theology, the Protestant attitude that we grab a couples line out of context without the proper understanding of its meaning, as interpreted by the Church, and draw all manner of conclusions from it, including heretical ones. The only difference is that the Prots only recognize one font of Revelation, whereas Catholics know that there are two. But apart from that, the mentality is identical.
-
Did you not see this part?: " by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".
They must be enlightened from their ignorance. Someone who is ignorant of the truths necessary for supernatural faith ... cannot have supernatural faith. To claim that someone can be saved by the exercise of natural virtue alone ... without being enlightened with supernatural faith is both heretical on its own and heretical because it's implicit Pelagianism. Your interpretation would make a heretic of Pius IX.
This teaching is almost word for word the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that those such as these can be saved ... because God will either directly enLIGHTEN them regarding the truths that must be known for salvation or else will send a preacher to them. In no way can they be saved without said enlightenment, as per Pius IX's "by the efficacious virtue of divine light".
Father Feeney wrote a lengthy article about how Pius IX learned of how people were interpreting this quote and was shocked.
I'm so weary of the armchair theology, the Protestant attitude that we grab a couples line out of context without the proper understanding of its meaning, as interpreted by the Church, and draw all manner of conclusions from it, including heretical ones. The only difference is that the Prots only recognize one font of Revelation, whereas Catholics know that there are two. But apart from that, the mentality is identical.
If it would make a Pelagian out of him, it certainly makes a Pelagian out of Bishop Williamson. Will you pick up the phone or will I?
-
This website claims that BOD is a dogma of the Church, and that it does not apply only to catechumens. They quote from many different sources, including Councils and Doctors. I find all of this quite confusing. Can anyone help me figure out the truth behind these claims?
http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
-
This website claims that BOD is a dogma of the Church, and that it does not apply only to catechumens. They quote from many different sources, including Councils and Doctors. I find all of this quite confusing. Can anyone help me figure out the truth behind these claims?
http://www.baptismofdesire.com/ (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/)
The owner of that site posted here in the past, suffice to say as is the case with that website, any yahoo can create a website and claim whatever they want.
Pick out the items that claim to be dogma and post those here if you would like help figuring it out and we'd be happy to help!
-
Pick out the items that claim to be dogma and post those here if you would like help figuring it out and we'd be happy to help!
Thanks. Here are two that I find particularly troubling:
Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, Vol III, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts): "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
-
Thanks. Here are two that I find particularly troubling:
Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, Vol III, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts):
1) "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
2) The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
3) However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
4) But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
The above is not a dogma, but any way:
1) Note that the letter does not say that one attains salvation via "desire and longing." The letter rightly says that desire and longing are helps to salvation, no one disputes this.
2) This is obvious error because the Church is not a general help to salvation, it is the only way to salvation. Here the dogma is denied.
3) Again note the letter does not say invincible ignorant people can be saved, it also distinguishes and acknowledges the difference between "those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire".
4) No one disputes this.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
The above is not dogma either, here we have contradictory teachings from the same Church Father:
Taken from: An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)." - St. Apphonsus
-
EXTRA ECCLESIAM – Baptism of Water, Blood, Desire
Let's look briefly again at the 3 infallible definitions regarding No Salvation Outside the Church –
#1 “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
#2 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
#3 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
A few talking points follow in their regard –
With dogma, one starts THERE, or WITH IT – and works out accordingly. Dogma is not the handmaid of theory, or some previously-argued theology or, as we see in our age, simply ignored or denigrated to liberal interpretation.
The No Salvation doctrine never needed defining previous to the years seen above, as until then it was understood that the Church held and taught such accordingly. As princes and people began to question and lose respect for the papacy, and depreciate the Church, definitions were forthcoming from the Holy Ghost.
And notice the rise in specificity with each. They become increasingly more exacting – and not to be misunderstood.
Also note the particular years in which these pronouncements were made. One wonders how St. Thomas (d. 1274), who held baptism of desire, would have thusly termed his works if he lived and studied after Definition 2 (1302) and 3 (1441) were made. Surely it is to be hoped – if not assumed - that he would have submitted as a Catholic and as a preacher and teacher, and dropped any “desire” notion he otherwise propounded. It is allowed to hope that, as there is a similar turmoil in our day on the issue of salvation, baptism – and even justification – that the Church in happier, future days, may define with further clarity on the issue.
The original version of the Catechism of the Council of Trent - call it the Latin version - has NO MENTION of either “baptism of blood” or “baptism of desire”! These phrases did not appear in Trent catechism copies until the late 1800s.
Further, this Council defined: If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort 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 God)” (Jn. 3:5), let him be anathema. (Session VII – Canon 2)
We are therefore obliged to believe this.
As for the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism for that matter, or bad copies of Trent especially - they do not have the same authority as definitions of the Church – or of the actual, defining Council of Trent’s promulgations (the original, untouched account of the actions of the Council of Trent).
We do not learn our theology directly from the Fathers or Doctors, any more than we learn our religion directly from the Bible. We learn our religion directly from the Church through her Magisterium which is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost. As Queen Isabella once said to her confessor as he attempted to answer a question she had presented to him: “Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as they were. I want to know what the Church says.”
-
Besides that, you reject the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. If there were a well disposed soul, say in the year 400 in the Americas, living in a jungle, if that person had the proper dispositions, God would either by an internal inspiration communicate to the soul that which must be believed or else, even miraculously, send someone to preach the truth. Are you not aware of the travels of Mary of Agreda to the Americas? This teaching of St. Thomas is based on the undisputed Catholic teaching that SOME THINGS MUST BE EXPLICITLY BELIEVED in order to have supernatural faith. No Catholic theologian has ever disputed this (until Bergoglio started babbling about how atheists could be saved). The fact that you question this tells me everything I need to know about your position. You're basically a Pelagian, man.
Fascinating.
According to you, the bolded part is the teaching of St. Thomas.
Yet what I said was the same thing that you claim I reject! Is St. Thomas also basically a Pelagian!?
You apparently think explicit faith in some doctrines is necessary. Well, God provides what is necessary for salvation as stated above. So if that person in the wilderness cooperates with the graces God provides, we should hold that God would also provide some way to know the required doctrines, whether that be through internal revelation or external teaching, including some miracle like a saint bilocating to the person.
-
... that it is puzzling in that they either do not see the obvious contradiction that a BOD is to the dogma EENS as well as other teachings of the Church and other pertinent points of faith, or, ...
You say there is an obvious contradiction. Is there really?
Perhaps the contradiction is only apparent, due to a misunderstanding of BOD and/or EENS? Nearly all pre-V2 theologians didn't see a contradiction and accepted both BOD and EENS. And these included clergy with actual training in theology, like Abp Lefebvre and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
Could you try looking at the passage from Pius IX without assuming there's a contradiction? What does it say, then? And you shouldn't neglect the context - it is important to understanding what it says from the BOD perspective.
-
Stanley, your problem is that you're not reading that entire section through the lens of Trent. Trent clearly taught what is required in preparation for baptism, and in preparation for justification - all of these requirements also apply in order to receive BOD.
.
You're reading Piux XI through the lens of modernism. This is where you fall into Pelagianism. Of all the various mentions of BOD (saints, popes, councils), Trent is the highest authority which mentions it. So if you ignore Trent's explanation of who BOD applies to, you're going to be led into error by the many modernist/heretical ideals which have tried to (and have been mostly successful in) watering down Trent.
Objections and Objectors
The correct interpretation of Pius IX and his condemnation of liberals distortions. (https://www.cor-mariae.com/Objectionsandobjectors.pdf)
..
-
Could you try looking at the passage from Pius IX without assuming there's a contradiction? What does it say, then? And you shouldn't neglect the context - it is important to understanding what it says from the BOD perspective.
I am the one telling you that there is no contradiction. Before the text, he affirms EENS, after the text, he affirms EENS, the text itself *must* agree with what he said before and after it and also affirm EENS. This is elementary. "When you do not understand what is written, you must read what is written directly before and after to read it in context to understand what it means". - Second grade teacher.
Here is a break down:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Note that the person is not invincibly ignorant or some native on a desert island. Rather, the person is normal, has intellect, knows how to think and is intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with his invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means he is sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion.
"Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".
All human creatures have inscribed by God on their hearts how to live according to the natural law and it's precepts, and to obey God is part of the natural law.
As long as a person does both; 1) seeks to find out about our holy religion and 2) strives to live according to the natural law and it's precepts, God will lead that person into the Church just as He led you into the Church and will never abandon that person. This is simply the very same Divine Providence that God arranged for you and I and all who are members to be in the Church. It is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it.
Once inside the Church, like you and I, he also is able to attain eternal life - provided he, like you and I, cooperates with the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Note that living a virtuous life is not enough and is in fact worthless without also seeking to find our about our holy religion. The pope rightly decries the necessity of both.
"Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments".
Such a person does not exist outside of the Church, as the pope immediately reiterates:
"Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior".
Put it all together:
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior".
-
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior"
The above quote is taken from Pius IX Encyclical : Quanto Conficiamur Moerore : On Promotion of False doctrines
Pope BI. Pius IX - 1863 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm)
Fr. Wathen's pdf. 'Objections and Objectors' (https://www.cor-mariae.com/Objectionsandobjectors.pdf) posted above goes into it all thoroughly.
..
-
I hope that for those of you who are promoting Fr Fenney's beliefs that you accept the fact that if your position is correct then the ordinary teaching power of the magisterium is liable to error, and, therefore, the Church can teach Catholics lies. What would be the point of a catechism if it could contain error [according to the Feeneyites]? Are you actually willing to say that the Church has approved an instruction manual for the faithful that can lead them into heresy? Are you seriously going to say that for hundreds of years all the catechisms produced for Christians will lead their souls to hell?
His Holiness Clement XIII stated that it's impossible for the Roman Catechism to contain error. Therefore, if you're willing to say the catechisms have taught error, because they teach BoD, then you contradict these infallible words of HH. Submit to Church teaching: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm
-
I hope that for those of you who are promoting Fr Fenney's beliefs that you accept the fact that if your position is correct then the ordinary teaching power of the magisterium is liable to error, and, therefore, the Church can teach Catholics lies. What would be the point of a catechism if it could contain error [according to the Feeneyites]? Are you actually willing to say that the Church has approved an instruction manual for the faithful that can lead them into heresy? Are you seriously going to say that for hundreds of years all the catechisms produced for Christians will lead their souls to hell?
His Holiness Clement XIII stated that it's impossible for the Roman Catechism to contain error. Therefore, if you're willing to say the catechisms have taught error, because they teach BoD, then you contradict these infallible words of HH. Submit to Church teaching: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm
About a half dozen false assumptions, and Father Feeney's name misspelled. This is one of the reasons that the radical sedevacantists are the most dogmatic on BoD, because they exaggerate the scope of infallibility to insane levels. There were some Catechisms right before Vatican I that rejected papal infallibility; these had to be corrected afterwards. Of course, you falsely assume also that the Roman Catechism teaches BoD, when it does not.
-
The above quote is taken from Pius IX Encyclical : Quanto Conficiamur Moerore : On Promotion of False doctrines
Pope BI. Pius IX - 1863 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm)
Fr. Wathen's pdf. 'Objections and Objectors' (https://www.cor-mariae.com/Objectionsandobjectors.pdf) posted above goes into it all thoroughly.
..
Of particular note are the words of Pius IX himself condemning as "atrocious injustice" to him those who would misinterpret his teaching exactly as the modern BoDers do. He reaffirms that there is no salvation outside of unity with the Church and that to inquire beyond that is impious. You'll rarely see the dishonest BoDers quote these words. Instead, they take his teaching out of context and commit the very "atrocious injustice" that the pope here denounces.
-
About a half dozen false assumptions, and Father Feeney's name misspelled. This is one of the reasons that the radical sedevacantists are the most dogmatic on BoD, because they exaggerate the scope of infallibility to insane levels. There were some Catechisms right before Vatican I that rejected papal infallibility; these had to be corrected afterwards. Of course, you falsely assume also that the Roman Catechism teaches BoD, when it does not.
And this is the problem with Gallicans such as yourself and the SSPX: You limit the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary magisterium to teachings of the Extraordinary magisterium. This was DIRECTLY CONDEMNED by Pius IX at Vatican I: "Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
You assert that catechisms are not infallible, and yet also admit that the Church corrected them. That proves all the more that they are protected from error, because clearly the Church caught it after defining the de fide position on infallibility. Again, His Holines Clement XIII makes it abundantly clear in that encyclical I posted that catechisms are used for the instruction of the faithful and CANNOT contain error. If your liberal view of infallibility is correct then the Church's ordinary teaching authority can contain error and the Catholic Church is no different from any other Protestant sect out there.
-
Of particular note are the words of Pius IX himself condemning as "atrocious injustice" to him those who would misinterpret his teaching exactly as the modern BoDers do. He reaffirms that there is no salvation outside of unity with the Church and that to inquire beyond that is impious. You'll rarely see the dishonest BoDers quote these words. Instead, they take his teaching out of context and commit the very "atrocious injustice" that the pope here denounces.
I agree that many in the N.O. abuse the Church's actual position on BoD, but it does not mean you throw the baby out with the bath water as Fr Feeney did. If Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Bonaventure all believed in BoD then there must not be any problem with it.
His Holiness Saint Pius X stated in his decree, Quem Singulari, that children ought to be instructed in the the faith via the Roman Catechism: “For first confession and for first communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. But the child will be obliged afterwards to learn gradually the whole catechism in accord with his intelligence.” (D 2138) If that is the case then OBJECTIVELY YOU MUST CONCLUDE that HIS HOLINESS SAINT PIUS X was a heretic for promoting heresy, and encouraging children to be instructed in heresy [i.e. since you think the catechism teaches heresy].
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9767
-
You assert that catechisms are not infallible, and yet also admit that the Church corrected them. That proves all the more that they are protected from error,
Sorry but this is probably the dumbest thing I've read all week. Are you SERIOUSLY using the fact that errors were corrected as proof that catechisms are infallible(i.e without error? The fact that they were corrected necessarily means there were previous catechisms which contained error, therefore proving that catechisms MUST be fallible.
-
About a half dozen false assumptions, and Father Feeney's name misspelled. This is one of the reasons that the radical sedevacantists are the most dogmatic on BoD, because they exaggerate the scope of infallibility to insane levels. There were some Catechisms right before Vatican I that rejected papal infallibility; these had to be corrected afterwards. Of course, you falsely assume also that the Roman Catechism teaches BoD, when it does not.
Also, it most certainly does teach baptism of desire. Council of Trent Session 6 Chp. 4 which reads: "A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
Saint Pius V always quoted Trent in favor of BoD. Also, canon law teaches BoD: Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”
-
Also, it most certainly does teach baptism of desire. Council of Trent Session 6 Chp. 4 which reads: "A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
Saint Pius V always quoted Trent in favor of BoD. Also, canon law teaches BoD: Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”
While the Church has kept the question open, it has never defined it as something that must be believed. You'll note that both of these deal with catechumens; there is zero support anywhere that BoD applies to anyone other than catechumens.
When Canon Law is saying that they are to be "treated as Baptized," it means for the purposes of the law. Previous statement says, "only the baptized are allowed to receive Christian burial". Then this statement you quoted follows, that catechumens are to be treated as baptized. In other words, ALL it's saying is that catechumens are allowed to receive a Christian burlal (as per the previous statement) and absolutely nothing more. It is no broader doctrinal statement on BoD. Earlier in Church history, the Canon stipulated that catechumens are NOT to receive Christian funeral rights. So if this is binding doctrine, then the earlier Canons were also binding doctrine, right? Of course, you pick and choose whichever ones you happen to like.
As for Trent, it is teaching that BOTH are needed. "CANNOT WITHOUT" refers to a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause. Trent is teaching that one cannot be justified without both the Sacrament and the desire to receive it. Trent's main teaching is that the Sacraments work based on a combination of completely free grace working ex opere operato along with cooperation of the will. There's actually a Canon which condemns the proposition that the Sacraments work magically even without the will to receive them.
We have a bunch of Trad-Prots here who like to yank one statement completely out of context and misrepresent it as teaching doctrine ... just like Prots do with Scripture. Hey, it says "call no man father," see? You do the same thing, except the only difference is that you acknowledge two sources of revelation, and they only one.
-
Sorry but this is probably the dumbest thing I've read all week. Are you SERIOUSLY using the fact that errors were corrected as proof that catechisms are infallible(i.e without error? The fact that they were corrected necessarily means there were previous catechisms which contained error, therefore proving that catechisms MUST be fallible.
When Ladislaus originally responded to my first statement my phrase which stated that catechisms are free from error was rendered to "infallible". Excuse me for not clarifying, but what I meant is that catechisms are similar to books which receive the imprematur. According to what the Church teaches the ordinary magisterium may produce an imprematur for something which was written. With that being said, such a said book would be deemed as safe for any Catholic to read [i.e. free from error]. However, if such a book were found to have an error then it would be restricted thereafter. Despite having received the imprematur. The same would be said about catechisms. I was not saying that they are infallible when they are written, as say an ex cathedra statement would, but they are deemed safe for Catholics to read. So, if the anti-BoD position is correct, then that means that such a level of authority in the Church COULD ALWAYS contain error, and the ordinary teaching power of the magisterium would be defective. In that case we'd be no different from the Protestants, and Catholics could be reading anything that's heretical.
-
Sorry but this is probably the dumbest thing I've read all week. Are you SERIOUSLY using the fact that errors were corrected as proof that catechisms are infallible(i.e without error? The fact that they were corrected necessarily means there were previous catechisms which contained error, therefore proving that catechisms MUST be fallible.
The same sort of thinking also applies to encyclicals. They do not bind Catholics under pain of sin, but it doesn't mean you can reject them either. Pius XII made this clear: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent 'He who heareth you, heareth me.'; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." Humani Generis (1950), D 2313.
-
While the Church has kept the question open, it has never defined it as something that must be believed. You'll note that both of these deal with catechumens; there is zero support anywhere that BoD applies to anyone other than catechumens.
When Canon Law is saying that they are to be "treated as Baptized," it means for the purposes of the law. Previous statement says, "only the baptized are allowed to receive Christian burial". Then this statement you quoted follows, that catechumens are to be treated as baptized. In other words, ALL it's saying is that catechumens are allowed to receive a Christian burlal (as per the previous statement) and absolutely nothing more. It is no broader doctrinal statement on BoD. Earlier in Church history, the Canon stipulated that catechumens are NOT to receive Christian funeral rights. So if this is binding doctrine, then the earlier Canons were also binding doctrine, right? Of course, you pick and choose whichever ones you happen to like.
As for Trent, it is teaching that BOTH are needed. "CANNOT WITHOUT" refers to a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause. Trent is teaching that one cannot be justified without both the Sacrament and the desire to receive it. Trent's main teaching is that the Sacraments work based on a combination of completely free grace working ex opere operato along with cooperation of the will. There's actually a Canon which condemns the proposition that the Sacraments work magically even without the will to receive them.
We have a bunch of Trad-Prots here who like to yank one statement completely out of context and misrepresent it as teaching doctrine ... just like Prots do with Scripture. Hey, it says "call no man father," see? You do the same thing, except the only difference is that you acknowledge two sources of revelation, and they only one.
So you accept explicit BoD? If that is the case then accept implicit BoD. Implicit BoD still conforms perfectly with EENS, because if one who is ignorant of the faith, and has no possible means to arrive at the faith [except through revelation], he can implicitly desire the faith. Implicitly, i.e. one has no knowledge of the essential truths of faith, but still accepts them if he believes God rewards good and punishes evil, etc. So long as he does not accept a false faith that perfectly conforms with EENS.
-
So you accept explicit BoD? If that is the case then accept implicit BoD. Implicit BoD still conforms perfectly with EENS, because if one who is ignorant of the faith, and has no possible means to arrive at the faith [except through revelation], he can implicitly desire the faith.
Total nonsequitur. Explicit BoD for catechumens comes from the fact that they belong in a way to the visible Church. St. Robert Bellarmine indicated that he felt it was possible by virtue of the fact that they are "in the vestibule" of the visible Church. In other words, they have one foot in the door. St. Robert, following Tridentine ecclesiology, declared that membership in the Church, a VISIBLE SOCIETY, consists of 1) receiving the Sacraments, 2) professing the faith, and 3) being subject to the Holy Father. Catechumens meet one of these criteria, profession of the faith, and could be said to be imperfect members of the Church.
Going beyond a catechumen immediately leads to an invisible Church, which is precisely the Protestant ecclesiology that Trent was condemning.
As even Rahner admits --
“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)
So, absolutely not, just because one accepts an explicit BoD for catechumens, implicit BoD for those who in no way adhere to the visible Church does not follow.
-
Some of you are just hopeless. You don't like EENS, and you are dead set on promoting the notion that all manner of non-Catholics can belong invisibly to the Church and can therefore be saved. None of you are interested in the BoD of St. Thomas or St. Robert Bellarmine, but merely try to use that concept to undermine EENS.
-
The same sort of thinking also applies to encyclicals. They do not bind Catholics under pain of sin, but it doesn't mean you can reject them either. Pius XII made this clear: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent 'He who heareth you, heareth me.'; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." Humani Generis (1950), D 2313.
But then it was OK for the Jesuits to come along in the mid 1500s and reject the prior 1500 years of Catholic teaching that explicit knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation? St. Alphonsus admits that "all the Scriptures and Church Fathers" oppose this opinion. Even Modernists like Rahner and Dulles admit this. They just think it's OK for Church doctrine to change ... as Modernists do. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you consider it illegitimate to reject any teaching in an approved work, then you must denounce the original "Rewarder God" theory innovation as illegitimate also.
-
I hope that for those of you who are promoting Fr Fenney's beliefs that you accept the fact that if your position is correct then the ordinary teaching power of the magisterium is liable to error, and, therefore, the Church can teach Catholics lies. What would be the point of a catechism if it could contain error [according to the Feeneyites]? Are you actually willing to say that the Church has approved an instruction manual for the faithful that can lead them into heresy? Are you seriously going to say that for hundreds of years all the catechisms produced for Christians will lead their souls to hell?
His Holiness Clement XIII stated that it's impossible for the Roman Catechism to contain error. Therefore, if you're willing to say the catechisms have taught error, because they teach BoD, then you contradict these infallible words of HH. Submit to Church teaching: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm
Like most, you have the wrong idea of what the Church's Magisterium is. FWIW, the teaching of the Church's Magisterium is that the sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation. Trent repeats this teaching infallibly in Session 7, Canon 4.
The first part of this canon is on salvation, not Justification:
"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous...let him be anathema".
The second part of this canon is on Justification, not salvation.
"...and [if anyone saith] 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".
-
I understand, gentlemen, where you are coming from, but Pius IX is pretty clear in his words on invincible ignorance. Of course a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life won't be saved. That is a fact. However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them. It is that simple. This website thoroughly refutes Feeneyism: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/brother-peter-dimonds-latest/
-
Another good read: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/how-feeneyism-is-like-calvinism/
-
I understand, gentlemen, where you are coming from, but Pius IX is pretty clear in his words on invincible ignorance. Of course a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life won't be saved. That is a fact. However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them. It is that simple. This website thoroughly refutes Feeneyism: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/brother-peter-dimonds-latest/
I too believe that BOD is a teaching of the Church, however please remember that invisible ignorance never saved anyone. Venerable Pius IX taught that no one is condemned on account of their invincible ignorance of the Church, not that they are saved due to it.
-
I too believe that BOD is a teaching of the Church, however please remember that invisible ignorance never saved anyone. Venerable Pius IX taught that no one is condemned on account of their invincible ignorance of the Church, not that they are saved due to it.
I agree. One is not saved on account of their ignorance, but on account of cooperation with God's grace. If they accept the truths written on their heart, and reject any false tenet, in accordance with God's grace, then we can have the hope of their salvation.
-
I understand, gentlemen, where you are coming from, but Pius IX is pretty clear in his words on invincible ignorance. Of course a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life won't be saved. That is a fact. However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them. It is that simple. This website thoroughly refutes Feeneyism: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/brother-peter-dimonds-latest/
Yes, Pope Pius IX is very clear.
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Note that the people he is talking about are not invincibly ignorant or some native on a desert island. Rather, the people are normal, have intellect, knows how to think and are intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with their invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means the people he is talking about are sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion. He is not talking about those incapable of thinking, nor is he saying those invincibly ignorant of our holy religion can be saved invincibly ignorant of our holy religion.
A Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life can't be saved, nor can anyone who dies outside of the Church. However, a Jew, or a Muslim, etc. who lives a moral life *and* is sincerely seeking, trying to find out about our holy religion (The pope calls this: "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".) will assuredly enter the Church - provided they correspond to the graces offered. If they do enter the Church, then like all Catholics, are "able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace". Contrary to common misunderstanding of his teaching, the pope never says anyone invincibly ignorant will be saved.
-
Pius IX at Vatican I: "Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm)
Nice job quoting 1 sentence out-of-context and also ignoring what came before and after it. You're reading comprehension is fantastic. (sarcasm alert).
-
However, one can implicitly desire baptism and salvation if they do what God requires of them.
How can one desire baptism if they are ignorant of the Faith/Church? How can one desire what one does not even know exists? What you are preaching is the heretical Rahner's "anonymous catholic".
.
If they accept the truths written on their heart, and reject any false tenet, in accordance with God's grace, then we can have the hope of their salvation.
No, we can have hope that God will ENLIGHTEN THEM and that they will JOIN THE CHURCH. Then, AFTER JOINGING THE CHURCH, they can be saved.
-
I am the one telling you that there is no contradiction. Before the text, he affirms EENS, after the text, he affirms EENS, the text itself *must* agree with what he said before and after it and also affirm EENS. This is elementary. "When you do not understand what is written, you must read what is written directly before and after to read it in context to understand what it means". - Second grade teacher.
If you agree there is no contradiction between EENS and BOD, what are you arguing about?
Obviosuly, Pius IX is not denying EENS. I don't know why you feel any need to repeat this. BOD is not opposed to EENS. And you now say you agree with that.
Here is a break down:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".
Note that the person is not invincibly ignorant or some native on a desert island. Rather, the person is normal, has intellect, knows how to think and is intelligent in things other than our holy religion but who now struggles with his invincible ignorance about our holy religion, which means he is sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion.
Wait, what? The person is "not invincibly ignorant" yet the text is about "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance..." ?
If someone is "sincerely trying to find out about our holy religion", then that person has access to instruction and it's a little difficult to see how that person would be invincibly ignorant. Invincible ignorance is an ignorance that cannot be overcome. Not a lot of authors give examples, but those that do usually give an example due to external causes such as someone living in the wilderness.
Then there is a book published in the UK in 1927, which gives as an example of invincible ignorance someone living in England, who having grown up surrounded by Proteestants might not be aware of the need for baptism! That's a hoot!
-
As for Trent, it is teaching that BOTH are needed. "CANNOT WITHOUT" refers to a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause. Trent is teaching that one cannot be justified without both the Sacrament and the desire to receive it. Trent's main teaching is that the Sacraments work based on a combination of completely free grace working ex opere operato along with cooperation of the will. There's actually a Canon which condemns the proposition that the Sacraments work magically even without the will to receive them.
Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR the desire thereof.
Or in other words: You can't have C without A or B.
And you're apparently saying this means you need BOTH A and B to have C?
Let's see if that makes sense....
You can't get groceries without cash or credit.
You can't go to the store without transportation, or walking.
No, that doesn't mean both are needed. In those examples, either A or B gets you C.
But you may object that in the above examples, the reality is that either one works.
What if we tried to write the same line about somehting that really does require both?
You can't work in the US without ID or employment eligibility.
Does that say you need both ID AND employment eligibility? No, it doesn't. It looks to me just like the other 2 examples. Grammatically, it says either one or the other is needed. On the other hand:
You can't work in the US without ID and employment eligibility.
Now, THAT would say in a clear manner. that both are needed.
Also, if both the sacrament AND desire were required, wouldn't that exclude children?
So it looks to me like you are misinterpreting Trent.
We have a bunch of Trad-Prots here who like to yank one statement completely out of context and misrepresent it as teaching doctrine ... just like Prots do with Scripture. Hey, it says "call no man father," see? You do the same thing, except the only difference is that you acknowledge two sources of revelation, and they only one.
There may be some Roman Protestants around, but perhaps they're not who you were thinking of, Laddy.
-
BOD is not opposed to EENS.
Oh, Stanley... :facepalm:
.
Obviously that would depend on HOW one defines BOD, wouldn’t it? And the entire problem we’re discussing is the MULTIPLE ways that different people understand it.
.
So how do you define it? Per St Thomas? St Alphonsus? Per Cardinal Dulles? Per Karl Rhaner?
-
Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR without the desire thereof. (Trent speaks in Latin, not English. In the Spanish, the translation says what I inserted, a second "without". Some English translations also say without twice.)
Or in other words: You can't have C without A or without B.
And you're apparently saying this means you need BOTH A and B to have C? (Correct )
Let's see if that makes sense....
You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball.
If an adult could be baptized by water or faith, then a person could be water baptized when he has no faith or desire baptized without water.
You can't get groceries without cash or credit.
You can't go to the store without transportation, or walking.
No, that doesn't mean both are needed. In those examples, either A or B gets you C.
But you may object that in the above examples, the reality is that either one works.
What if we tried to write the same line about somehting that really does require both?
You can't work in the US without ID or employment eligibility.
Does that say you need both ID AND employment eligibility? No, it doesn't. It looks to me just like the other 2 examples. Grammatically, it says either one or the other is needed. On the other hand:
You can't work in the US without ID and employment eligibility.
Now, THAT would say in a clear manner. that both are needed.
Also, if both the sacrament AND desire were required, wouldn't that exclude children? (the desire comes from the godparents. The Church teaches that.)
So it looks to me like you are misinterpreting Trent.
There may be some Roman Protestants around, but perhaps they're not who you were thinking of, Laddy.
See comments in red.
Nevertheless, if Trent is teaching as you say, that one can be baptized by explicit desire, it means nothing to you, since you reject that teaching in your belief that people can be saved who have no desire to be baptized, or to be Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. You are up the creek without a paddle.
-
BODers say that Baptism of Desire is taught by the Council of Trent, while at the same time they totally reject what they say Trent teaches, BOD of the catechumen, by their REAL belief that people can be saved without explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Trent does not clearly teach baptism of desire of the catechumen, yet they cling on to the ONLY "dogma that teaches BOD", which is not clear, meanwhile, they reject the CLEAREST dogma on EENS, from the Coucil of Florence, that reiterates the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, and is the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and is not opposed by any Father, Doctor, saint or council, the need to believe explicitly in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, that they reject completely! They reject the very line of Trent that they always bring up, and they reject all the dogmas on EENS to arrive at their real belief, that anyone can be saved in any religion. They reject ALL the dogmas on EENS.
The BODers say this unclear dogmatic decree means that someone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity:
Quote
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
[color]
Unclear? Ladislaus has here many times pointed out that the Trent quote means you need both baptism and explicit desire, which he can explain further here himself, but I will add that in the Spanish translation it is very clear that you need both it says "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof". And this makes all sense to me because coming from a Spanish background, my Catholic school educated relatives going back to being born in the 1890's (I am in my 60's now now) had never once heard of anything but damnation for all non-Catholics, specially Protestants. That is what I was always taught. I never heard of baptism of desire till I read the Americanist Baltimore Catechism in the 1990's. It makes sense to me that the BC would teach that anyone can be saved outside of the Church to avoid getting American minority Catholics lynched.
Quote
[/color]http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1 (http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000436/p000001.html#0-p0.5.1.1)
CAP. IV. Se da idea de la justificación del pecador, y del modo con que se hace en la ley de gracia.
En las palabras mencionadas se insinúa la descripción de la justificación del pecador: de suerte que es tránsito del estado en que nace el hombre hijo del primer Adan, al estado de gracia y de adopción de los hijos de Dios por el segundo Adan Jesucristo nuestro Salvador. Esta traslación, o tránsito no se puede lograr, después de promulgado el Evangelio, sin el bautismo, o sin el deseo de él; según está escrito: No puede entrar en el reino de los cielos sino el que haya renacido del agua, y del Espíritu Santo.
[color]
The BODers say that this CLEAR dogmatic decree does not mean that someone has to have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to be saved:
Quote
[/color]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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
-
Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR without the desire thereof. (Trent speaks in Latin, not English. In the Spanish, the translation says what I inserted, a second "without". Some English translations also say without twice.)
Please don’t go there.....
Saint Alphonsus was a great canon lawyer, a giant of a theologian, arguably the most published author ever, he most likely knew Church Latin better than anyone alive today, he was closer to the time of Trent than we are by over 250 years, he is THE Church’s Doctor of Moral Theology, a canonized saint and he absolutely disagrees with your translation. Are you really going to make the case that NO ONE caught this “error” for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS???
(No offense to you or Ladislaus is intended.)
-
Trent says you can't be justified without the laver of redemption OR without the desire thereof. (Trent speaks in Latin, not English. In the Spanish, the translation says what I inserted, a second "without". Some English translations also say without twice.)
Latin for reference, italics added:
1524 796 Cap. 4. Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et 'adoptionis filiorum' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).
I'm not sure it makes any difference, but the "sine" is not repeated in Latin.
You can't get groceries without cash or without credit.
-
Saint Alphonsus was a great canon lawyer, a giant of a theologian, arguably the most published author ever, he most likely knew Church Latin better than anyone alive today, he was closer to the time of Trent than we are by over 250 years, he is THE Church’s Doctor of Moral Theology, a canonized saint and he absolutely disagrees with your translation.
St Alphonsus died in the late 1700s, 200 years after Trent. That’s 200 years of “emotional theology” which arose to save the supposed-good-willed native. St Alphonsus is a man, a fallible man who is subject to sentimentality just as we all are, just as St Bellarmine was when he said that damnation for the ignorant “seems too harsh”. Let’s not treat St Alphonsus as some infallible oracle who’s incapable of error.
-
St Alphonsus died in the late 1700s, 200 years after Trent. That’s 200 years of “emotional theology” which arose to save the supposed-good-willed native. St Alphonsus is a man, a fallible man who is subject to sentimentality just as we all are, just as St Bellarmine was when he said that damnation for the ignorant “seems too harsh”. Let’s not treat St Alphonsus as some infallible oracle who’s incapable of error.
We're closer in time to Vatican I than he was to Trent. Yes, he was a great saint, but he made a fair number of mistakes also. That can happen when you write 1,000 pages per year. St. Augustine, hands down the greatest theologian in the first millennium, issued an entire BOOK called "Corrections," where he corrected his prior opinions on a wide range of subjects.
-
St Alphonsus died in the late 1700s, 200 years after Trent. That’s 200 years of “emotional theology” which arose to save the supposed-good-willed native. St Alphonsus is a man, a fallible man who is subject to sentimentality just as we all are, just as St Bellarmine was when he said that damnation for the ignorant “seems too harsh”. Let’s not treat St Alphonsus as some infallible oracle who’s incapable of error.
But.... I’m to trust you and others who hold your position, that Trent was mistranslated for 400 years, and that Saint Alphonsus was wrong? You expect me to bet my immortal soul that you are right and Saint Alphonsus was mistaken when he claimed it is de fide? No thanks, I’ll stick with the “sentimental” Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Robert Bellarmine.
-
But.... I’m to trust you and others who hold your position, that Trent was mistranslated for 400 years, and that Saint Alphonsus was wrong? You expect me to bet my immortal soul that you are right and Saint Alphonsus was mistaken when he claimed it is de fide? No thanks, I’ll stick with the “sentimental” Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Robert Bellarmine.
Nobody's stopping you from believing in BoD. I have no problem if you want to believe it. So long as, at the same time, you don't try to promote this heretical nonsense that non-Catholics can be saved under the guise of BoD.
Even IF you want to read Trent this way, there's nothing there to suggest any kind of positive definition. Mention of it appears in a narrative portion of the docuмent, and it's mentioned almost in passing. At the very best it's leaving the possibility open, but it's not actively defining anything about it that must be believed.
-
No thanks, I’ll stick with the “sentimental” Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Robert Bellarmine.
Ahhh...but here’s the thing you guys can’t quite swallow because you’re too emotionally invested in the conclusion you think is “correct”. Neither St Thomas, nor St Robert nor St Alphonsus agrees on BOD, except very generally. Specifically they disagree quite a bit. This is what we’re trying to point out - the “theological consensus” you are arguing for doesn’t exist.
-
But.... I’m to trust you and others who hold your position, that Trent was mistranslated for 400 years, and that Saint Alphonsus was wrong? You expect me to bet my immortal soul that you are right and Saint Alphonsus was mistaken when he claimed it is de fide? No thanks, I’ll stick with the “sentimental” Saint Alphonsus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Robert Bellarmine.
But this is the entire history of BoD ... a tenuous chain of "authority." St. Bernard was responsible for BoD becoming widely adopted by the schismatics, and he only agreed with it tentatively, "whether in truth or in error," due to the "authority" of St. Augustine. St. Bernard was not acquainted with St. Augustine's vehement retraction of the opinion later in life. Then everybody else bases it on the "authority" of St. Thomas, etc.
There's zero indication that BoD was part of the Deposit of Revelation; it was never anything more than sheer speculation. Even when St. Augustine first floated the idea he said that he had gone back and for on the issue and that it "seemed to [him]" that [BoD]. There was nothing here of, "this is the teaching of the Apostles". There was no universal consensus of the Church Fathers. In fact, more Fathers explicitly rejected it than "accepted" it.
I'll go with St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Fulgentius and St. Gregory of Nyssa ... all of whom explicitly rejected it.
So you're afraid to disagree with St. Alphonsus, who got it from St. Thomas, who got it from St. Bernard, who was afraid to disagree with St. Augustine.
-
We're closer in time to Vatican I than he was to Trent. Yes, he was a great saint, but he made a fair number of mistakes also. That can happen when you write 1,000 pages per year.
Lad, I think you know that I respect your opinion, but you know as well as I that all of Saint Alphonsus’ writings were declared by the Church to be safe to follow. This would be a serious mistake on his part, can you please give me references to the other mistakes you claim he made?
-
But this is the entire history of BoD ... a tenuous chain of "authority." St. Bernard was responsible for BoD becoming widely adopted by the schismatics, and he only agreed with it tentatively, "whether in truth or in error," due to the "authority" of St. Augustine. St. Bernard was not acquainted with St. Augustine's vehement retraction of the opinion later in life. Then everybody else bases it on the "authority" of St. Thomas, etc.
There's zero indication that BoD was part of the Deposit of Revelation; it was never anything more than sheer speculation. Even when St. Augustine first floated the idea he said that he had gone back and for on the issue and that it "seemed to [him]" that [BoD]. There was nothing here of, "this is the teaching of the Apostles". There was no universal consensus of the Church Fathers. In fact, more Fathers explicitly rejected it than "accepted" it.
I'll go with St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Fulgentius and St. Gregory of Nyssa ... all of whom explicitly rejected it.
So you're afraid to disagree with St. Alphonsus, who got it from St. Thomas, who got it from St. Bernard, who was afraid to disagree with St. Augustine.
Actually, before Trent I would probably have sided with you. After Trent there is not a single theologian that I know of who interprets Trent the way you do.
-
After Trent there is not a single theologian that I know of who interprets Trent the way you do.
After Trent, there’s not a single theologian who interprets it the same way as another.
-
Actually, before Trent I would probably have sided with you. After Trent there is not a single theologian that I know of who interprets Trent the way you do.
Yes, out of about 3 or 4 who actually even talk about this passage. Father Cekada could only find two dozen theologians who mentioned BoD at all, most of them in passing.
Again, however, I am not asking you to side with me. Baptism of Desire is not an issue that's of primary interest to me. I'm more concerned about EENS and the ecclesiology that results from lax EENS. I've had half a mind before just to pretend that I believed in BoD for catechumens just so we could put aside this distraction from the real issue. I'd have no serious problem in principle accepting it ... I simply don't because there's no proof for it, and I am a firm believer, along with St. Augustine that God will not fail to bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect. I do not believe that God is constrained by "impossibility". So if some catechumen were to die without Baptism, then God willed that to happen. But why would God will one of His elect who sought Baptism and had all the necessary dispositions for it to not receive it? Why would God cut such a one off from Baptism? Whatever happened to "seek and ye shall find."? Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.
So after the Church had dogmatically declared that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I really need to accept as dogma, as St. Alphonsus claims, the very opposite, that the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation? I'll follow the thinking of Pius IX here: All I know is that there is no salvation outside the Church and that Baptism is the way into the Church. Apart from this I know nothing, and Pius IX said to inquired beyond that is impious.
-
Lad, I think you know that I respect your opinion, but you know as well as I that all of Saint Alphonsus’ writings were declared by the Church to be safe to follow. This would be a serious mistake on his part, can you please give me references to the other mistakes you claim he made?
Yes, and I agree that they are "safe" to follow. You commit no sin by following any of his teachings that were not subsequently condemned by the Church. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about.
-
Yes, out of about 3 or 4 who actually even talk about this passage. Father Cekada could only find two dozen theologians who mentioned BoD at all, most of them in passing.
Again, however, I am not asking you to side with me. Baptism of Desire is not an issue that's of primary interest to me. I'm more concerned about EENS and the ecclesiology that results from lax EENS. I've had half a mind before just to pretend that I believed in BoD for catechumens just so we could put aside this distraction from the real issue. I'd have no serious problem in principle accepting it ... I simply don't because there's no proof for it, and I am a firm believer, along with St. Augustine that God will not fail to bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect. I do not believe that God is constrained by "impossibility". So if some catechumen were to die without Baptism, then God willed that to happen. But why would God will one of His elect who sought Baptism and had all the necessary dispositions for it to not receive it? Why would God cut such a one off from Baptism? Whatever happened to "seek and ye shall find."? Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.
So after the Church had dogmatically declared that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I really need to accept as dogma, as St. Alphonsus claims, the very opposite, that the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation? I'll follow the thinking of Pius IX here: All I know is that there is no salvation outside the Church and that Baptism is the way into the Church. Apart from this I know nothing, and Pius IX said to inquired beyond that is impious.
As you know and just to be clear, I believe in the orthodox “conservative” position with regard to BOD. You said: “ Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.” How do you explain the case of Saint Emerentiana?
-
Yes, and I agree that they are "safe" to follow. You commit no sin by following any of his teachings that were not subsequently condemned by the Church. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about.
It seems to me that you’re in good faith, I’m just concerned about your welfare.
-
As you know and just to be clear, I believe in the orthodox “conservative” position with regard to BOD. You said: “ Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.” How do you explain the case of Saint Emerentiana?
That would not be BoD but BoB. There's no proof that she wasn't already baptized. It was common practice in the early church during times of persecution to baptize catechumens but otherwise treat them as catechumens (and call them catechumens); they would continue in their instruction while being actually baptized.
-
It seems to me that you’re in good faith, I’m just concerned about your welfare.
Thanks, Quo. In order for something to be certain with the certainty of faith, it has to be, well, certain. Of the theologians surveyed by Father Cekada, only a small handful said BoD was de fide. If it were truly de fide, there would be unanimity among them on that point.
-
Quo Vadis, what is your opinion on the Cardinal Dulles article on the other thread?
-
Quo Vadis, what is your opinion on the Cardinal Dulles article on the other thread?
Modernist garbage. It leads to the heresy of universal salvation.
-
Yeah but what part are you rejecting? 75% of the article was a history on the EENS, which clearly shows a marked increase in liberalism in the 1600s onwards. So are you disputing this change, or just the conclusion which these changes lead to?
.
Do you or do you not admit that the 1600s started novel thinking?
.
Where do you draw the line with these novelties? You believe in St Alphonsus but you don’t go further? Or you accept salvation for ignorant natives...which is a liberalization of even St Alphonsus?
.
I honestly want to know how you (and others) draw a line? If St Alphonsus can liberalize St Thomas, and if the Pius X catechism can liberalize St Alphonsus, and if the 1940s Cushing can liberalize the Pius X catechism and condemn Feeney, then why can’t V2 and Rahner and Dulles liberalize Cushing? Where do the “doctrinal developments” end?
-
Yeah but what part are you rejecting? 75% of the article was a history on the EENS, which clearly shows a marked increase in liberalism in the 1600s onwards. So are you disputing this change, or just the conclusion which these changes lead to?
.
Do you or do you not admit that the 1600s started novel thinking?
.
Where do you draw the line with these novelties? You believe in St Alphonsus but you don’t go further? Or you accept salvation for ignorant natives...which is a liberalization of even St Alphonsus?
.
I honestly want to know how you (and others) draw a line? If St Alphonsus can liberalize St Thomas, and if the Pius X catechism can liberalize St Alphonsus, and if the 1940s Cushing can liberalize the Pius X catechism and condemn Feeney, then why can’t V2 and Rahner and Dulles liberalize Cushing? Where do the “doctrinal developments” end?
Actually I think you make a fair argument, but here are my thoughts.... Outside the Church there is no salvation, period. People can become incorporated into the Church unbeknownst to anyone. For instance, a validly baptized Protestant could be given the graces necessary before he dies to make an act of perfect contrition and could be saved unbeknownst to anyone around him. In the case of a catechumen who died before receiving baptism and was instructed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption, that person could be saved by the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or by shedding his blood for Christ, provided the person made an act of perfect contrition and was thus in a state of sanctifying grace before he died.
BTW, just to be clear, in the case of the Protestant above, he did NOT die a Protestant, he died a Catholic. I believe that the Church teaches that persons baptized in heretical sects are still considered members of the Church until they reach the age of 14. Ladislaus, please correct me on this if I’m wrong about that.
-
Ok, I understand those situations. For the sake of argument, I agree.
.
Now for the million dollar question- what about ignorant natives? THIS is where the liberalization started creeping in. What say you?
-
One more thing to add above about the Protestant, if he showed no sign of conversion before his death, we must assume he was lost.
-
Ok, I understand those situations. For the sake of argument, I agree.
.
Now for the million dollar question- what about ignorant natives? THIS is where the liberalization started creeping in. What say you?
Well they must certainly need to believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the redemption. Basically, they would be in the same boat as catechumens.
-
Well then they wouldn’t be ignorant anymore, right? So you believe (correctly) that an ignorant native is damned. Thanks for being clear and direct. I do appreciate it!
-
As you know and just to be clear, I believe in the orthodox “conservative” position with regard to BOD. You said: “ Even if some uphold it as a theoretical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner.” How do you explain the case of Saint Emerentiana?
Scroll down to page 121 f (https://www.cor-mariae.com/Addendum.pdf)or an answer to this question.
-
Well then they wouldn’t be ignorant anymore, right? So you believe (correctly) that an ignorant native is damned. Thanks for being clear and direct. I do appreciate it!
No, of course they wouldn’t be ignorant of those truths which are necessary for salvation. You are welcome.
-
Wait, what? The person is "not invincibly ignorant" yet the text is about "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance..." ?
That is correct, the pope never said that the person is invincibly ignorant.
Your problem here is merely one of the problems that every single person that promotes salvation via no sacrament at all have in common, namely, they read the same truths we all read, but they read meanings into words which the words they read do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say.
-
That is correct, the pope never said that the person is invincibly ignorant.
Your problem here is merely one of the problems that every single person that promotes salvation via no sacrament at all have in common, namely, they read the same truths we all read, but they read meanings into words which the words they read do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say.
Indeed.
If someone is struggling with "invincible ignorance" then there has to be some "invincible ignorance" to struggle with.
If it can be overcome, it's not invincible ignorance, and the person is just struggling with ignorance.
-
Indeed.
If someone is struggling with "invincible ignorance" then there has to be some "invincible ignorance" to struggle with.
If it can be overcome, it's not invincible ignorance, and the person is just struggling with ignorance.
This idea ^^ is very confused.
Those struggling with "invincible ignorance about our holy religion" are ignorant about our holy religion - but are seeking, putting forth effort in order to find out, to learn about our holy religion.
It's not complicated.
-
Actually I think you make a fair argument, but here are my thoughts.... Outside the Church there is no salvation, period. People can become incorporated into the Church unbeknownst to anyone. For instance, a validly baptized Protestant could be given the graces necessary before he dies to make an act of perfect contrition and could be saved unbeknownst to anyone around him.
In the case of a catechumen who died before receiving baptism and was instructed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption, that person could be saved by the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or by shedding his blood for Christ, provided the person made an act of perfect contrition and was thus in a state of sanctifying grace before he died.
BTW, just to be clear, in the case of the Protestant above, he did NOT die a Protestant, he died a Catholic. I believe that the Church teaches that persons baptized in heretical sects are still considered members of the Church until they reach the age of 14. Ladislaus, please correct me on this if I’m wrong about that.
I agree with these thoughts Quo. Btw, I think the age is the age of reason, 7.
-
This idea ^^ is very confused.
Those struggling with "invincible ignorance about our holy religion" are ignorant about our holy religion - but are seeking, putting forth effort in order to find out, to learn about our holy religion.
It's not complicated.
You say "those struggling with invincible ignorance" are not subject to invincible ignorance. To say that does violence to the words themselves.
Do you know what "invincible ignorance" is?
"Invincible" is an adjective modifying "ignorance", limiting it. "Invincible ignorance" is not just any ignorance, but ignorance which is "invincible". "Invincible" means unconquerable, unable to be overcome.
-
If it can be overcome, it's not invincible ignorance, and the person is just struggling with ignorance.
You define "invincibly ignorant" as a permanent state, while I would define it as a temporary state. How can anyone be invincibly ignorant forever? Does not Christ "enlighten every man who comes into the world" (John 1)? Is God unable to conquer invincible ignorance?
.
Secondly, where does the Church give us a definition for invincible ignorance? Oh right, there is none. So it's an abstract idea which everyone can interpret their own way. What madness! If the Church hasn't defined it, so all catholics can understand it the same way, then it's not a catholic term and shouldn't be used when discussing theology.
.
Finally, you keep using this anti-Catholic term, yet you have not admitted that Bl Pius IX was quoted out-of-context in his statement where he mentions it. He later clarified his view, but the modernists who surrounded him had already spread the original mistake far and wide. Do you or do you not accept Bl Pius IX's correction?
-
You define "invincibly ignorant" as a permanent state, while I would define it as a temporary state. How can anyone be invincibly ignorant forever? Does not Christ "enlighten every man who comes into the world" (John 1)? Is God unable to conquer invincible ignorance?
.
Secondly, where does the Church give us a definition for invincible ignorance? Oh right, there is none. So it's an abstract idea which everyone can interpret their own way. What madness! If the Church hasn't defined it, so all catholics can understand it the same way, then it's not a catholic term and shouldn't be used when discussing theology.
.
Finally, you keep using this anti-Catholic term, yet you have not admitted that Bl Pius IX was quoted out-of-context in his statement where he mentions it. He later clarified his view, but the modernists who surrounded him had already spread the original mistake far and wide. Do you or do you not accept Bl Pius IX's correction?
It's an anti-Catholic term, but Pius IX used it. Yeah right.
Your first paragraph asks complex issues. I'm not going to write a thesis on this, so don't make a fuss that I haven't included all the distinctions. But yes, I think God could overcome invincible ignorance by way of a miracle. This is not meant to be a statement about the relationship between grace and free will.
Has the Church defined "blood", "outside", "without"? No. We are capable of understanding ordinary words.
I am not aware of any statement of the Church prior to V2 that I do not accept.
-
I agree with these thoughts Quo. Btw, I think the age is the age of reason, 7.
Yes, I see why you would say that the age of reason (7) is the age in which baptized Protestant children would still be considered members of the Church. I also believed this to be the case until about 15 years ago when I read in some theology manual that the Church still considers them Catholic until the age of 14 (at least I think so). Father Collins and I discussed this years ago and confirmed what I had read.
-
I will try to find the reference for what I said above.
-
It's an anti-Catholic term, but Pius IX used it. Yeah right.
Again, you're missing the point. His use of the term caused confusion, which he regretted, and it caused him to re-clarify.
.
Your first paragraph asks complex issues.
It's not complex, it's directly from Scripture.
Scripture = God enlightens all men who come into the world.
Doctrine = God's existence is provable, to all men, by way of human reason.
Scripture = All men have the natural law written on their hearts. Ergo, no one is invincibly ignorant of God, nor of the 10 commandments.
Doctrine = If they co-operate with grace, and follow the natural law, then any ignorance of the Faith will be enlightened.
Scripture = God does not "cast pearls before swine" and will not enlighten those who, due to their sinful lives, will not appreciate spiritual things.
Ergo, no one is created in invincible ignorance of God or their requirements due to Him and their neighbor. There are only those who are ignorant of the Faith, which ignorance God will cure, if they follow the 10 commandments and seek the truth. Such ignorance of the Faith is temporary, or permanent, depending on the person's cooperation with actual graces (i.e. following of the natural law).
.
For the 2nd time...you have not admitted that Bl Pius IX was quoted out-of-context in his statement where he mentions it. He later clarified his view, but the modernists who surrounded him had already spread the original mistake far and wide. Do you or do you not accept Bl Pius IX's correction?
-
Yes, I see why you would say that the age of reason (7) is the age in which baptized Protestant children would still be considered members of the Church. I also believed this to be the case until about 15 years ago when I read in some theology manual that the Church still considers them Catholic until the age of 14 (at least I think so). Father Collins and I discussed this years ago and confirmed what I had read.
14? That's interesting. I'd love to see the rationale/explanation for this.
-
14? That's interesting. I'd love to see the rationale/explanation for this.
Yeah, I was surprised too when I read it. I will try to find the reference.
-
You say "those struggling with invincible ignorance" are not subject to invincible ignorance. To say that does violence to the words themselves.
You seem to be unable to read past the word "ignorance" in the sentence of Pope Pius IX. Please complete the sentence by adding the words, "about our holy religion" whenever you say "those struggling with invincible ignorance" so as to complete the sentence. If you do this, you might then see that he is talking abut all those people out there who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our holy religion - at the same time see that he is not talking about invincibly ignorant people, which is to say that he is not talking about people who are incapable of thinking.
-
14? That's interesting. I'd love to see the rationale/explanation for this.
I've never heard of 14 being the age a Protestant is no longer considered a Catholic, but if that is the case then that age was likely picked because that's when they make their First Communion in many Protestant denominations.
-
I've never heard of 14 being the age a Protestant is no longer considered a Catholic, but if that is the case then that age was likely picked because that's when they make their First Communion in many Protestant denominations.
I have yet to find that reference, but I’ll continue to look for it. In the meantime I withdraw my claim until I find it.
-
Yes, I see why you would say that the age of reason (7) is the age in which baptized Protestant children would still be considered members of the Church. I also believed this to be the case until about 15 years ago when I read in some theology manual that the Church still considers them Catholic until the age of 14 (at least I think so). Father Collins and I discussed this years ago and confirmed what I had read.
I trusted Father Collins implicitly (as you know), so if for some reason you can not verify this, I would think that either you misunderstood something he said .... or vice versa. :-)
Gosh, it's almost been a year, and my heart still aches. :'(
-
I trusted Father Collins implicitly (as you know), so if for some reason you can not verify this, I would think that either you misunderstood something he said .... or vice versa. :-)
Gosh, it's almost been a year, and my heart still aches. :'(
April 27. :'( .....
Yes, I could be mistaken. It won’t be the first time. 😀
-
I have yet to find that reference, but I’ll continue to look for it. In the meantime I withdraw my claim until I find it.
I could see some principle at work there to use 14 as the age; that's around the time that many cultures have considered children as becoming adults (before the relatively-arbitrary age of 18 was established). It's also when Confirmation is typically administered (for the same reason).
-
For the 2nd time...you have not admitted that Bl Pius IX was quoted out-of-context in his statement where he mentions it. He later clarified his view, but the modernists who surrounded him had already spread the original mistake far and wide. Do you or do you not accept Bl Pius IX's correction?
I didn't quote him out of context.
I already said I'm not aware of any Church statement before V2 that I don't accept. That would include Pius IX's other encyclicalls. So what "correction" are you referring to?
But since you're asking - do you accept or dismiss the letter from the Holy Office concerning Fr. Feeney's beliefs?
-
So what "correction" are you referring to?
I forget what page it was on.
But since you're asking - do you accept or dismiss the letter from the Holy Office concerning Fr. Feeney's beliefs?
I'm not an expert on Fr Feeney and my arguments aren't related to him. It's been a long time since I read the letter; what I remember was that it was very general and ambiguous. So, yes, I would accept it, but I would dismiss the misleading language. A letter of formal correction has to be precise for it to have any authority.