Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ambrose on March 18, 2014, 07:09:49 PM
-
To Matthew and all,
I wrote this post a while back, but I think it is relevant again. There are grave effects of holding the heresy of denying Baptism of Desire, or, likewise the grave error of rejecting implicit Baptism of Desire.
When the Church reforms, the proponents of this heresy and error against the Faith will be warned, and if they will not recant, they will incur excommunication. The legitimate authorities of the Church will bring justice to these doctrinal criminals.
To sum up:
1. This heresy leads to a perverse idea about God's mercy, by erroneously holding that the State of Grace, the friendship with God, is not sufficient for salvation.
2. It leads to a false idea that God is bound to the externals.
3. It leads to the idea that the Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith to be taught in catechisms, dogmatic theology manuals, commentaries on the Code, and explanations from the Holy Office. To follow this position, one would never trust the Church again.
4. It exalts the role of individuals to be the judge of what Catholics must believe and destroys the necessity of submission and trust to the Popes and bishops.
5. It holds that private interpretation of Council docuмents supersedes the common understanding and interpretation of the Doctors and theologians.
6. It holds the arrogant belief that Catholics can hold dissenting opinions against the consensus of the theologians.
7. It holds that Catholics can privately evaluate the teaching of the Fathers against the common teaching of the theologians.
8. It holds a position contrary to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which has consistently taught Baptism of Desire and Blood always and everywhere.
9. It holds a position directly opposed to the Council of Trent, which has explicitly taught Baptism of Desire, and the reason St. Alphonsus states it was de fide.
-
blah blah blah, Ambrose.
We've heard it all before.
I could list a couple dozen harmful effects of your EENS-denial.
-
Thank you, Ambrose, for defending Catholic doctrine.
-
1. This heresy leads to a perverse idea about God's mercy, by erroneously holding that the State of Grace, the friendship with God, is not sufficient for salvation.
You admit your BoD premise, that it would be incompatible of God's mercy (in your thinking) for Him to withhold salvation from anyone. That's heretical. No one is owed salvation. As St. Augustine said, this thinking opens the "vortex of confusion". Why isn't it incompatible with God's Mercy that unbaptized infants are lost? Why isn't it incompatible with God's Mercy that some receive certain graces while other do not? You open up a can of worms and arrogantly PRESUME to tell God what is merciful and what is not.
2. It leads to a false idea that God is bound to the externals.
That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments. Plus it's utterly ridiculous. Of course God is not bound by anything; what's at issue is the economy of salvation to which He has bound US.
BoD is predicated upon another heretical premise, namely that anything is IMPOSSIBLE for God. God can bring the Sacraments to His elect just as He can give them any other grace.
3. It leads to the idea that the Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith to be taught in catechisms, dogmatic theology manuals, commentaries on the Code, and explanations from the Holy Office. To follow this position, one would never trust the Church again.
You're barking up the wrong tree here, Ambrose. Matthew is a sedeplenist and therefore by definition believes that Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith. You demand allegiance to pre Vatican II theologians but then hypocritically refuse it to the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD AT VATICAN II. You follow the ridiculous caricature that many sedevacantists make of infallibility that a Pope can never err. That's patently false. Vatican I Fathers cited numerous examples of errors and contradictions in authoritative papal teaching. They used these to come up with their definition of papal infallibility and the notes of infallibility.
4. It exalts the role of individuals to be the judge of what Catholics must believe and destroys the necessity of submission and trust to the Popes and bishops.
You judged Vatican II to be erroneous and unworthy of submission, hypocrite. Where was your submission to the Pope and Bishops of Vatican II?
5. It holds that private interpretation of Council docuмents supersedes the common understanding and interpretation of the Doctors and theologians.
YOU, again hypocritically, are the one who interprets. We are taking the Council definitions of EENS at face value. We believe that when Our Lord taught that one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit, that Our Lord meant exactly that. YOU are the one who interprets this to mean, of water OR ELSE AT LEAST the Holy Spirit. When numerous dogmatic definitions have taught that pagans, heretics, and schismatics CANNOT BE SAVED, we take that at face value. YOU are the one who makes pages of distinctions to basically tell us in your heretical hubris that WE are heretics for accepting the formula as it's written, and that we are heretics for not believing that the EXACT OPPOSITE is somehow dogma. What a mockery you make of the Church's magisterium.
6. It holds the arrogant belief that Catholics can hold dissenting opinions against the consensus of the theologians.
And yet you're allowed to reject the teaching of the bishops of the entire world teaching in Council?
7. It holds that Catholics can privately evaluate the teaching of the Fathers against the common teaching of the theologians.
And yet you can privately evaluate the teachings of the bishops of the entire world teaching in Council?
8. It holds a position contrary to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which has consistently taught Baptism of Desire and Blood always and everywhere.
Was not the Universal Ordinary Magisterium in play when the bishops of the entire world unanimously taught us Vatican II?
9. It holds a position directly opposed to the Council of Trent, which has explicitly taught Baptism of Desire, and the reason St. Alphonsus states it was de fide.
Trent never taught BoD.
One heresy / hypocrisy after another, Ambrose, and yet you have the audacity to call us heretics.
-
How timely.
:devil2:
-
That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments.
God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians. You are an idiot for calling it heretical.
-
Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
A Strawman thread!
The Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome and the local diocese. The Church has not declared BOD in any shape or form a dogma, nor has it declared heretics anyone or any saint, doctor or priest who taught teach John 3:15 as it is written, including all the Saint Benedict centers .
It is only YOU Ambrose that by your own cojones declares them heretics.
And yet, you believe that anyone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be Catholic, baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity!
Your belief is oppose to the clear DOGMA of Florence and the 1600 year old Athanasian creed.
It does not phase you one iota that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic!
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning. Moreover, not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in Christ and the real God, the Holy Trinity.
-
God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians.
=End Run (= disregard all dogmas, God's grace is not bound by the sacraments )
From Fr. Ludwig Ott, a source frequently sighted by traditionalists here on CI:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Fr. Ludwig Ott (b1906-d1985), 1952
Page 239
II. The Universality of Grace, sec. C, “ There is also the possibility that God, in an extraordinary manner, remits original sin to those children who die without baptism, and communicates grace to them, as His power is not limited by the Church’s means of grace. However, the possibility of such an extra-sacramental communication of grace cannot be proved.”
Since "God is not bound by the sacraments", then God can make Pope Francis a valid priest, bishop, pope, and the Novus Ordo priests and bishops and consecrations all valid.
Combine the term "implicit" and the theory that "God is not bound by the sacraments", and you can turn white into black. No dogma or teaching has any meaning. Oh, I forgot, that already happened, it's the conciliar church.
-
Here are some long - term effects of promoting the heresy of Invincible Ignorance via last minute Baptism of Desire:
If there is Salvation outside the Church (via last minute invisible Baptism of Desire), it will automatically follows that:
1. The pope is not infallible because the three popes who solemnly defined the dogma ex-cathedra were in error.
2. The Church has no ultimate authority and all dogmatic definitions are not infallible either and can be rejected or accepted at will. Fallible theologians supersede the Church's Divine appointed authority.
3. The Sacraments of the Church are not really necessary for salvation.
4. Priesthood to administer the Sacraments is not necessary either
since they are not only "invisible" but are available to everybody by "desire".
5. Neither an ordained clergy nor a hierarchical structure are necessary because the Church is now an invisible entity and membership by Baptism in the visible Church is not necessary for Salvation.
Why in the world would anyone want to become a Catholic and strive to be a good one if that, if this heresy of being part of the Church invisibly is what we are preaching? These are the ultimate consequences of BOD in the long run.
-
No, no, no Ambrose!
I challenged you to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - not the mythical anti-sacrament a BOD!
What were you thinking?
:facepalm:
You are always proving me right - which, in this instance, is not what I actually want.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ... let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Question: Who was the first one who ever thought to ask the question: "How many baptisms are there" anyway?
Ambrose, don't you remember this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) challenge?
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
Now try again! This time do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation!
-
That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments.
God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians. You are an idiot for calling it heretical.
God has bound US with the necessity of the Sacraments. Consequently, WE are bound by the Sacraments. You guys keep promoting the gnostic garbage (which undermines the Incarnation) in disparaging the visible aspect of the Sacraments to which God has bound US. You can read my response where I admit that God is not bound by anything; it's a question of what He has bound US with. God is not bound ultimately by ANYTHING; it's a question of what God has bound US with and what God has revealed to US in terms of what He binds us with.
You are therefore heretical for denying the necessity of the Sacraments. Stubborn is correct in saying that you outright DESPISE the Sacraments. Your false application of this principle to undermining the necessity of the Sacraments is what's heretical. It's a bogus argument that leads to heresy.
Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water? Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water. You stupid dishonest buffoon. Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.
Go ahead, SJB, try to confer the Sacrament of Baptism by just saying the words and not pouring any water, and then come back and tell me what God is "bound by". I'm guessing that you would not validly confer the Sacrament of Baptism despite your "desire" to do so. This is yet another one of your dishonest arguments.
You guys are dishonest. You guys are hypocrites.
You guys are enemies of the Catholic Faith, not its defenders. You are more interested in the appropriate dimensions of the lavabo cloth than in dogma.
I'll TELL you the effects of your BoDer ecclesiology.
it's called Vatican II.
Your BoDer ecclesiology leads to RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM.
Your BoDer ecclesiology leads to EVERY SINGLE ERROR IN VATICAN II.
You are not honest enough to admit that your BoDer ecclesiology is identical to V2 ecclesiology.
I have repeatedly asked you to distinguish, and you CONSTANTLY come back with ad hominems, hiding behind BoD proper, and changing the subject. I have received EXACTLY ONE RESPONSE when I traced out in detail the logical continuity between extended BoD and Vatican II, and the response was from someone who obviously never read Vatican II and claimed without citation or proof that Vatican II promoted the notion that non-Catholic creeds are as good as Catholic ones. Which Vatican II clearly does NOT teach.
If you were to convince me of your ecclesiology, I would be honest enough to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II.
You on the other hand are not honest. You want to have your Traditional cake and eat it too.
You know, I used to criticize the Dimonds for calling people like you bad-willed. Evidently they have dealt with your type of heretical nonsense long enough to know. You have clearly manifested your bad will.
-
How timely.
:devil2:
We appreciate your deep theological insights as always, Mabel.
:heretic:
-
Notice how Ambrose disparages the MATTER of the Sacraments, matter that was instituted by Our Lord, as mere "externals". That's actually VERY much in line with mainstream Novus Ordo theology. To Stubborn's point about how they despise the Sacraments. At first I thought Stubborn's language was a bit strong, but now I agree with it.
Even in your bogus BoD theology, you have to admit that there is NO OTHER WAY to confer the Baptismal character than THE EXTERNALS, no other way to confer HOLY ORDERS than by THE EXTERNALS. You are heretical in BINDING God to these externals.
-
To Ladislaus/Canterella/Bowler
You can take the following "private revelation" with you to your individual judgements and tell Christ "I honestly did not believe it"!
"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena
Matthew 8:11-12
"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
-
To Ladislaus/Canterella/Bowler
You can take the following "private revelation" with you to your individual judgements and tell Christ "I honestly did not believe it"!
Firstly, we are talking about extended BoD and not BoD proper, which is the subject of this citation.
Secondly, material like this cannot be used to form dogma. These texts are often interpolated and embellished by editors, etc. And even if it was authentic, when it comes to locutions very often the intellect of the "receiver" becomes a conduit or a filter, and it's often very difficult to distinguish personal reflection from actual divine location. So, for instance, there are direct contradictions between the visions of Catherine Emmerick and Mary of Agreda regarding specific concrete details about the life of Our Lord. While it takes nothing away from the sanctity of St. Catherine of Siena, there's a lot of doubt about where any particular passage comes from (from an editor, interpolator, or the saint's own mind). In fact, the Dialogues appear to DERIVE from one or more "Letters" of St. Catherine which according to editors contain "mostly" the "words of God". Mostly? There are some correlations between St. Catherine's "Letter 272" and the "Dialogue", but there are also major differences. Many scholars consider the Dialogue a "derived work" (derived by whom?), derived from some content in her letters. Adding to the confusion and uncertainty, Catherine herself was just beginning to learn how to write and relied upon secretaries for most of her correspondence. Over time there had been multiple editions or compilations with different structures and different content.
What matters in establishing true Catholic doctrine is Revelation and the Church's magisterium interpreting that Revelation.
There's absolutely ZERO indication that Baptism of Desire is revealed.
You have ONE Church Father who unambiguously floats the idea of BoD: St. Augustine. St. Augustine later retracted the opinion. Even in floating it he did NOT describe it as a TEACHING or as having any authority. He admitted in his language that it was his own personal speculative theology. "Considering the matter over and over again, I find ..." HE "finds" (not "teaches"). He went back and forth on the subject and then landed on this speculative opinion. Meanwhile, there are 3 or 4 Church Fathers who EXPLICITLY reject BoD. Consequently, there's lacking ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that BoD was part of Divine Revelation. Had it been revealed by Our Lord, then there would be indication of that in a unanimous consent and teaching of the Church Fathers. If it's not part of Divine Revelation, it can never become dogma, regardless of how many people hold the opinion.
Another way that something can be said to be revealed is if it derives implicitly (by way of syllogism) from other revealed dogmas. No theologian has EVER even attempted to demonstrate this. They merely repeat the gratuitous assertion of this opinion rooted in speculative theology. There's no such thing as some kind of "growing awareness" of the Church nonsense that the modernists like to promote as a source of dogma. Just because more and more people over time have glommed onto the idea (because it tickles their fancy and they like it) does NOT mean that it's dogma.
Consequently, BoD CAN NEVER BECOME DOGMA. It can on the other hand be rejected as heretical if it can be demonstrated to contradict revealed dogma, and all the evidence indicates that it does contradict revealed dogma.
-
Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water? Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water. You stupid dishonest buffoon. Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.
The Sacrament is administered by humans. Yes the Sacrament requires water. We are required to use water.
I have quoted the theologians, while you, like a truly arrogant buffoon, have done your own theology. You have yet to quote one single source for the crap you spill onto these threads.
-
Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water? Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water. You stupid dishonest buffoon. Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.
The Sacrament is administered by humans. Yes the Sacrament requires water. We are required to use water.
I have quoted the theologians, while you, like a truly arrogant buffoon, have done your own theology. You have yet to quote one single source for the crap you spill onto these threads.
So you are, as Ambrose said, BINDING GOD by "the externals", aren't you? God is not BOUND. God BINDS. So this is a completely disingenuous argument with gnostic, Protestant, heretical overtones.
-
To Ladislaus
You said:
"Firstly, we are talking about extended BoD and not BoD proper"
Our Lord said:
"I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love.
"
What do you mean "we are talking about extended BOD and not BOD proper?"
You said:
"Secondly, material like this cannot be used to form dogma."
The doctrine of original sin was defined through the writings of St Augustine, who was only a theologian. This is a dictation directly from God!
You know you are wriggling to support your position, which is dishonest.
Ecclesiasticus 32:21
"A sinful man will flee reproof, and will find an excuse according to his will."
It seems just that if your position is maintained, that Almighty God at your judgement, should permit all those who have expended so much effort in the face of your defiance, to witness your shame, having upheld your own ego above the truth.
Shame on you!!
-
Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water? Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water. You stupid dishonest buffoon. Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.
The Sacrament is administered by humans. Yes the Sacrament requires water. We are required to use water.
I have quoted the theologians, while you, like a truly arrogant buffoon, have done your own theology. You have yet to quote one single source for the crap you spill onto these threads.
So you are, as Ambrose said, BINDING GOD by "the externals", aren't you? God is not BOUND. God BINDS. So this is a completely disingenuous argument with gnostic, Protestant, heretical overtones.
Are you really that stupid, Ladi? God has bound us thru HIS Church, yet God's grace is not bound by the Sacraments. That does not degrade the Sacraments or "bind" God to the Sacraments.
Show us a source for the drivel you post here or shut up.
-
Are you really that stupid, Ladi? God has bound us thru HIS Church, yet God's grace is not bound by the Sacraments. That does not degrade the Sacraments or "bind" God to the Sacraments.
Again, SJB, you need a Logic 101 course.
If God has bound US in such a way that we cannot be saved without Sacramental Baptism, this doesn't mean that God IS BOUND. But this not change the fact that Sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation, not because God IS BOUND, but because God HAS BOUND us to it. So the "God not being bound" argument simply does not apply to the question of whether the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. In fact, if you try to twist it backwards the way you do, you are HERETICALLY REJECTING THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION AS TAUGHT BY TRENT. So you need to dump this stupid argument ASAP. That's why I said that it was heretical when Ambrose used it.
-
Are you really that stupid, Ladi? God has bound us thru HIS Church, yet God's grace is not bound by the Sacraments. That does not degrade the Sacraments or "bind" God to the Sacraments.
Again, SJB, you need a Logic 101 course.
If God has bound US in such a way that we cannot be saved without Sacramental Baptism, this doesn't mean that God IS BOUND. But this not change the fact that Sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation, not because God IS BOUND, but because God HAS BOUND us to it. So the "God not being bound" argument simply does not apply to the question of whether the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. In fact, if you try to twist it backwards the way you do, you are HERETICALLY REJECTING THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION AS TAUGHT BY TRENT. So you need to dump this stupid argument ASAP. That's why I said that it was heretical when Ambrose used it.
Well Ladi, you are a moron because NOBODY teaches this. You simply made it up.
Yes, God has bound us yet He is not bound. HIS acceptance of perfect contrition does not "unbind" us.
Again, start providing some sources or SHUT UP.
-
To Ladislaus/Canterella/Bowler
You can take the following "private revelation" with you to your individual judgements and tell Christ "I honestly did not believe it"!
"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena
Matthew 8:11-12
"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
No Catholic is obliged to believe private revelation. In fact, we're cautioned about them. What weight has this paragraph attributed to St Catherine Siena with the following Divine Church dogmatic statement:
"“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church”
Again, Any one who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans thereby inverting their authority.
-
To Cantarella,
Your response is yet another willful misinterpretation of BOD, which confers the Catholic faith.
Romans 6:17
"But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered."
Your defense is about pride and not truth; about wanting to be superior to others and not in a communion of love with them in Christ.
You, Bowler et al are truly as described by Our Lady of La Salette:
"The true faith to the Lord having been forgotten, each individual will want to be on his own and be superior to people of same identity"
And to reject the revelations given to St Catherine, be that they are private revelation, is not an act of prudence but an act of malice:
As St Paul states:
Galatians 1:8
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
...and so you are all held - a disgrace on earth and in heaven!
-
To Cantarella,
Your response is yet another willful misinterpretation of BOD, which confers the Catholic faith.
Romans 6:17
"But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered."
Your defense is about pride and not truth; about wanting to be superior to others and not in a communion of love with them in Christ.
You, Bowler et al are truly as described by Our Lady of La Salette:
"The true faith to the Lord having been forgotten, each individual will want to be on his own and be superior to people of same identity"
And to reject the revelations given to St Catherine, be that they are private revelation, is not an act of prudence but an act of malice:
As St Paul states:
Galatians 1:8
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
...and so you are all held - a disgrace on earth and in heaven!
Are you a student of Vetus Ordo?
He was a staunch Trad who thought he could interpret Scripture too - - he is now fully prot. - which is where you're heading if you're not already one.
-
Protestant - style Bible quoting, entirely out of context and from an individual interpretation point, provide little contribution to the discussed topic.
-
Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water? Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water. You stupid dishonest buffoon. Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.
The Sacrament is administered by humans. Yes the Sacrament requires water. We are required to use water.
I have quoted the theologians, while you, like a truly arrogant buffoon, have done your own theology. You have yet to quote one single source for the crap you spill onto these threads.
So you are, as Ambrose said, BINDING GOD by "the externals", aren't you? God is not BOUND. God BINDS. So this is a completely disingenuous argument with gnostic, Protestant, heretical overtones.
Are you really that stupid, Ladi? God has bound us thru HIS Church, yet God's grace is not bound by the Sacraments. That does not degrade the Sacraments or "bind" God to the Sacraments.
Show us a source for the drivel you post here or shut up.
:facepalm:
You are an embarrassment even to BODers.
You reject the whole idea that the sacraments are really useful and necessary unto salvation - per Trent, we must suppose you despise the sacraments. Which does not, IMO, bode well for you when it comes your turn to seek the last sacrament. If I were you, I'd expect God to leave me with my contrition and desire for the sacrament - and hope it works.
This Remedy To Be Used
The faithful, therefore, having formed a just conception of the dignity of so excellent and exalted a blessing, should be exhorted to profit by it to the best of their ability. For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it; particularly since, in communicating to the Church the power of forgiving sin, the Lord did so with the view that all should have recourse to this healing remedy. As without Baptism no one can be cleansed, so in order to recover the grace of Baptism, forfeited by actual mortal guilt, recourse must be had to another means of expiation, -- namely, the Sacrament of Penance.
-
To Cantarella,
Your response is yet another willful misinterpretation of BOD, which confers the Catholic faith.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. BoD does NOT confer the Catholic faith. Catholic faith is a PREREQUISITE for BoD (assuming it exists). BoD simply supplies some of the effects of Sacramental Baptism. Trent teaches that accepting the Catholics faith comes PRIOR to justification in Baptism.
-
Ladislaus states:
"You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. BoD does NOT confer the Catholic faith. Catholic faith is a PREREQUISITE for BoD (assuming it exists). BoD simply supplies some of the effects of Sacramental Baptism. Trent teaches that accepting the Catholics faith comes PRIOR to justification in Baptism."
Session 6, Chapter VII, Decree Concerning Justification:
This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The causes of justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified,…
Thus you cannot have the Catholic faith without Baptism (water, desire or blood), but only a nascence.
As St Thomas explains:
"In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance."
By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual life, which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the Apostle says (Galatians 2:20): "And that I live now in the flesh; I live in the faith of the Son of God." Now life is only in those members that are united to the head, from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore it follows of necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated in Christ, as one of His members. Again, just as the members derive sense and movement from the material head, so from their spiritual Head, i.e. Christ, do His members derive spiritual sense consisting in the knowledge Of truth, and spiritual movement which results from the instinct of grace. Hence it is written (John 1:14-16): "We have seen Him . . . full of grace and truth; and of His fulness we all have received." And it follows from this that the baptized are enlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful by Him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace.
-
What you have conveniently articulated is what I have termed ...
"Faith of Desire"
When I came up with the term, the BoDers all scoffed.
Most BoDers are actually FoDers. It's FoD that I call heretical, not BoD. I disagree with BoD, but do not believe it to be heretical, since the Church has always tolerated the opinion.
What I considered to be heretical is FoD. And you basically just proved my point, that you all believe in "Faith of Desire", not Baptism of Desire, that which I have called BoD proper.
-
To Canterella:
HOW ABOUT THE WORDS OF GOD! WHICH YOU REJECT!!! THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY!
"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena
John 8:47
"He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."
Matthew 8:11-12
"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
-
Stubborn said:
"Are you a student of Vetus Ordo?
He was a staunch Trad who thought he could interpret Scripture too - - he is now fully prot. - which is where you're heading if you're not already one."
These words and your numerous other uncharitable words will go with you to your judgement. Seemingly, you feel secure in you mockery of your neighbour now, but as it is written:
Matthew 12:36
"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment."
Ecclesiasticus 7:8
"Nor bind sin to sin: for even in one thou shalt not be unpunished."
-
Again, andysloan, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
All of this absolutely destroys Faith of Desire, for the famous "desire quote" comes AFTER this.
Your reference to Baptism being the "Sacrament of Faith" has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
These predisposing virtues however do not on their own justify but "dispose" to be justified. Yet another argument AGAINST BoD.
Notice also the next part:
CHAPTER VII
IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES
This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself,
Notice that justification FOLLOWS these predispositions, and the dispositions to not themselves justify. Notice also that the "resolve to receive Baptism" comes BEFORE justification and therefore does not in itself justify. Trent teaches that JUSTIFICATION occurs AFTER these when Baptism happens.
So Trent actually condemns BoD.
Based on this teaching alone you who hold FAITH OF DESIRE are condemned.
-
To Ladislaus:
What do think Christ thinks of the way you speak to your neighbour?
Matthew 25:40
"And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."
1 Corinthians 5:11
"But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat."
-
Stubborn said:
"Are you a student of Vetus Ordo?
He was a staunch Trad who thought he could interpret Scripture too - - he is now fully prot. - which is where you're heading if you're not already one."
These words and your numerous other uncharitable words will go with you to your judgement. Seemingly, you feel secure in you mockery of your neighbour now, but as it is written:
Matthew 12:36
"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment."
Ecclesiasticus 7:8
"Nor bind sin to sin: for even in one thou shalt not be unpunished."
2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
-
To stubborn:
By posting the following Scripture:
2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
You invalidate its use in defending your original statement.
-
Protestant - style Bible quoting, entirely out of context and from an individual interpretation point, provide little contribution to the discussed topic.
As opposed to your Protestant-style Denzinger quoting?
-
I wish this topic had its own subforum, for crying out loud. It never ends.
-
I wish this topic had its own subforum, for crying out loud. It never ends.
Confining it to a sub-forum would be better than the present. There it could be ignored more easily. The SBC cult currently injects their errors into just about any thread possible.
-
Ladislaus said:
Notice that justification FOLLOWS these predispositions, and the dispositions to not themselves justify. Notice also that the "resolve to receive Baptism" comes BEFORE justification and therefore does not in itself justify.
There is no issue here. Baptism confers the Catholic faith, else if the individual had it before, he could be saved according to EENS. But where water baptism is unobtainable, say for a primitive in his virgin forest or a dying man, the desire is sufficient.
Trent affirms BOD:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
World English Dictionary
OR
1 (ɔː, ( unstressed ) ə)
— conj
1. used to join alternatives: apples or pears ; apples or pears or cheese ; apples, pears, or cheese
-
Andy,
Are you able to do the strictly Catholic thing and start a thread championing the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - or will you admit that for you to do such a thing is absolutely impossible because you do not believe any sacraments at all are a necessity unto salvation?
I ask because in over 3 months of asking, there is not one single solitary BODer who has accepted this challenge - nor are any of them honest enough to admit they cannot bring themselves to do such a thing - are you going to be honest?
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) challenge?
I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.
NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
I maintain that SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.
This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.
I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.
It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.
-
Stubborn said:
Andy,
Are you able to do the strictly Catholic thing
(infers stubborn is the true catholic; casting doubt on the Catholic pedigree of the other - deceit, detraction; insincerity)
and start a thread championing the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation
(implying the other is a heretic - calumny)
- or will you admit that for you to do such a thing is absolutely impossible because you do not believe any sacraments at all are a necessity unto salvation?
(lying, calumny)
I ask because in over 3 months of asking, there is not one single solitary BODer who has accepted this challenge
(infers the truth rests with stubborn's position through non-acceptance - deceit, insincerity)
- nor are any of them honest enough to admit they cannot bring themselves to do such a thing - are you going to be honest?
(non-compliance vindicates stubborn's position; others are dishonest - deceit, lying, calumny)
Titus 3:10-11
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."
-
Stubborn said:
Andy,
Are you able to do the strictly Catholic thing
(infers stubborn is the true catholic; casting doubt on the Catholic pedigree of the other - deceit, detraction; insincerity)
No, I asked a clear question expecting a clear answer.
I can see you are just as dishonest as the rest of the BODers.
and start a thread championing the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation
(implying the other is a heretic - calumny)
Wrong again.
I accuse YOU and the other BODers of being unable to even think of defending the necessity of the sacraments. Your reply shows that it is just as absolutely impossible for you defend the sacraments as it would be for me to defend the anti-sacrament a BOD.
- or will you admit that for you to do such a thing is absolutely impossible because you do not believe any sacraments at all are a necessity unto salvation?
(lying, calumny)
Weasel reply.
Either start a thread and champion the defense of the sacraments or admit it is absolutely impossible for you to preach a BOD and at the same time defend the necessity of the sacraments.
I ask because in over 3 months of asking, there is not one single solitary BODer who has accepted this challenge
(infers the truth rests with stubborn's position through non-acceptance - deceit, insincerity)
Super weasel reply.
Infers that YOU cannot defend that which you despise. . . . .the only way to prove me wrong is to actually start a thead championing the defense of the sacraments.
- nor are any of them honest enough to admit they cannot bring themselves to do such a thing - are you going to be honest?
(non-compliance vindicates stubborn's position; others are dishonest - deceit, lying, calumny)
This is the first thing you got EXACTLY RIGHT!
Titus 3:10-11
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."
CANON IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; . let him be anathema.
St. Alphonsus; 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.
Andy, by your reply, you'da thought I asked you to do something un-Catholic or something anti-Catholic - the truth of the matter is that I asked you to do something STRICTLY Catholic - think about that - think about why you did not jump at the chance!
I will say that at least you acknowledged the challenge - which is more than the other weasels did.
I suggest you repeat the words of Trent " the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation" 1500 times a day until you believe it.
-
To Stubborn:
Show me where I have ever denied the sacraments are of the New Law are necessary unto salvation.
-
I wish this topic had its own subforum, for crying out loud. It never ends.
Confining it to a sub-forum would be better than the present. There it could be ignored more easily. The SBC cult currently injects their errors into just about any thread possible.
This is absolutely true, and I for one fail to understand how this type of behavior is tolerated. Seriously, Church quote after Church quote has been provided to counter the misguided conclusions being propagated here by these unfortunate souls, yet, this circus parade of arrogant pride is allowed to continue without any recourse?
-
To Stubborn:
Show me where I have ever denied the sacraments are of the New Law are necessary unto salvation.
Do you believe salvation is attainable via a BOD?
If your answer is yes, then since BOD is not a sacrament, you believe salvation is possible without any sacraments at all - you therefore deny the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation. . . . . which is why you cannot defend that which you believe are not a necessity - hence the reason you replied to the challenge offered to you the way you did instead of coming to the defense of the sacraments with a new thread.
See how the challenge automatically self incriminates all BODers? You can say whatever you want, but the only way to *prove* you are able to do the Catholic thing is by accepting the challenge - any other reply demonstrates the impossibility of defending the sacraments and championing a BOD at the same time. . .all you need do is admit it. If not publicly, at least to yourself.
-
Extract from : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of desire and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbutero 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".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
If St. Alphonsus believed that Baptism of Desire was *De Fide*, then does that make him a heretic?
-
Extract from : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of desire and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbutero 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".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
If St. Alphonsus believed that Baptism of Desire was *De Fide*, then does that make him a heretic?
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:
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.
Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?
-
Stubborn said:
"If your answer is yes, then since BOD is not a sacrament, you believe salvation is possible without any sacraments at all."
???????????????????????????????????
1 Timothy 6:3-5
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth."
-
Stubborn said:
"If your answer is yes, then since BOD is not a sacrament, you believe salvation is possible without any sacraments at all."
???????????????????????????????????
1 Timothy 6:3-5
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth."
What do you mean?
??????????????????????????????????????
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
As I said, the repulsiveness you feel toward defending the necessity of the sacraments is your wake up call - answer it by doing the strictly Catholic thing. . . . . .or admit that such a thing is absolutely impossible for you to do.
St. Alphonsus
The heretic says that no sacrament is necessary.
-
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:
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.
Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?
To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "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." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.
St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.
That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?
-
Extract from : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of desire and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbutero 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".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
If St. Alphonsus believed that Baptism of Desire was *De Fide*, then does that make him a heretic?
Just a mistaken theological opinion that cannot contradict Church defined Dogma. Theologians are fallible but The Holy Mother Church does not err. Therefore not saint, bishop, or theologian is the binding teaching authority of the Church. Dogmas are truths from Heaven, not to be superseded by theologians, by inverting their authority.
We are taught de fide by the First Vatican Council that the meaning of sacred doctrine can NEVER change and that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine. Vatican I taught: " The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Ghost they might disclose a new doctrine, but by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth"
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion that cannot contradict Church defined Dogma. Theologians are fallible but The Holy Mother Church does not err. Therefore not saint, bishop, or theologian is the binding teaching authority of the Church. Dogmas are truths from Heaven, not to be superseded by theologians, by inverting their authority.
We are taught de fide by the First Vatican Council that the meaning of sacred doctrine can NEVER change and that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine. Vatican I taught: " The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Ghost they might disclose a new doctrine, but by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth"
If, then, according to this opinion, St. Alphonsus is *mistaken* and therefore misleading the Faithful with his viewpoint why are not those who are against BOD not railing against *him* more? His opinion holds greater weight than any BOD proponent on this forum - therefore he, then, is the real enemy, is he not? Why so much energy wasted on little nobody BOD posters on Cathinfo? Please explain.
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.
Can you?
So if Baptism of Desire has never been a de fide dogma, it automatically follows that St Alphonsus held a mistaken fallible opinion. We learn this because there is a contradiction between the statement said above and the infallible teachings of the Church on Baptism. There is only ONE Baptism for the remission of Sin, and that of water and of the word.
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.
You can not produce a single Church authority that confirms your opinion?
Yet, I and others, have time and time again provided you with authoritative Church sources teaching exactly the truths you yourself condemn. So as I survey you on one side of this debate, and Church authorities on the other side, there is really no option as to where my loyalties would be applied.
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion that cannot contradict Church defined Dogma. Theologians are fallible but The Holy Mother Church does not err. Therefore not saint, bishop, or theologian is the binding teaching authority of the Church. Dogmas are truths from Heaven, not to be superseded by theologians, by inverting their authority.
We are taught de fide by the First Vatican Council that the meaning of sacred doctrine can NEVER change and that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine. Vatican I taught: " The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Ghost they might disclose a new doctrine, but by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth"
If, then, according to this opinion, St. Alphonsus is *mistaken* and therefore misleading the Faithful with his viewpoint why are not those who are against BOD not railing against *him* more? His opinion holds greater weight than any BOD proponent on this forum - therefore he, then, is the real enemy, is he not? Why so much energy wasted on little nobody BOD posters on Cathinfo? Please explain.
St. Alphonsus is not the real enemy. The only real enemy is Satan who attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. In this what had happened to the dogma of "Extra Eclessiam Nullas Salus" in modern times. As I said in the other thread, there is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them.
In current times, nobody would be discussing about Baptism of Desire if it was not because it is a loophole in the dopctrine of Salvation that the liberals have exploited to the point of allowing salvation to members of false religions.
As dear Ladislaus put it once so brilliantly that I have it in my annotations:
BoD went from
1) NONE
to
2) Catechumens
to
3) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an Explicit Desire for Baptism
to
4) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in the desire to join the Catholic Church)
to
5) Anyone who believed at least in the Holy Trinity and central mysteries of the Incarnation and had an at least Implicit Desire for Baptism (implicit in wanting to do what God revealed) ... extending now to Schismatics and Protestants
to
6) Anyone with Implicit Desire for Baptism via implicit desire to become Catholic by virtue of wanting to do what God wants and believing in the Rewarder God
to
7) Any nice guy, not explicitly a member of the Church of Satan, and not prone to mass murder ... or even possibly a member of the Church of Satan if he sincerely believed that by doing so he was serving God. Definitely, though, if he works in a soup kitchen (despite being on his fifth marriage ...to a man).
If it was not because BOD undermines the Dogma of "Extra Eclessiam Nullas Salus" nobody would be debating about it.
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.
You can not produce a single Church authority that confirms your opinion?
Yet, I and others, have time and time again provided you with authoritative Church sources teaching exactly the truths you yourself condemn. So as I survey you on one side of this debate, and Church authorities on the other side, there is really no option as to where my loyalties would be applied.
The Church authority is the Infallible Magisterium in which we find that Baptism of Desire has never been de fide. Please refresh my memory and provide a single INFALLIBLE dogmatic statement that proves that BOD is de fide teaching.
Please abstent from quoting theologians and saints, which being mere men, are fallible. Cite the Holy Mother Church.
Whereas there is nowhere where we infallibly can find the efficacy of Baptism of Desire or Blood, there are indeed infallible dogmas that prevent us from turning Our Lord's commands into vane metaphors. This fact alone makes Bod and Bob impossibilities.
-
...and the Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena - a great gift from Above, are totally inadmissible!!!
"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena
Heaven must blush!!!!
Matthew 8:11-12
"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
-
Anyone trying to argue against Heaven - given Infallible dogmatic statements with Saints quotes has no clue of what Church infallibility is all about.
No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma. Any one who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Infallibility and dogmatic definitions.
Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans thereby inverting their authority.
-
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:
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.
Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?
To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "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." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.
St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.
That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?
Do you deny that St. Alphonsus as well as all the others who preached a BOD did so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding or John 3:5 and / or Trent?
Do you think the saints have authority over the Councils?
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.
You can not produce a single Church authority that confirms your opinion?
Yet, I and others, have time and time again provided you with authoritative Church sources teaching exactly the truths you yourself condemn. So as I survey you on one side of this debate, and Church authorities on the other side, there is really no option as to where my loyalties would be applied.
You agree that St. Alphonsus is a Church Authority ONLY when he teaches about a BOD?
What about when he said only heretics believe no sacraments are necessary? - Did you determine he suddenly does not know what he is talking about or is a heretic?
Why do you pick and choose like that?
Here is a link to a thread that Ambrose started: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3
It starts out with St. Alphonsus clearly teaching: "2. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, - now to show you how screwed up BODers can get, Ambrose posted this in defense - not of the sacraments, ha, certainly not, he posted it to promote the anti-sacrament yet again.
If you read the first few posts from that thread, you'll see I was confused at how Ambrose was trying to use St. Alphonsus, who was clearly teaching the necessity of the sacraments, as a defense for a BOD.
At any rate, read the teaching of St. Alphonsus in that thread, then read his quote teaching a BOD is de fide - - - why do you choose to believe him when he teaches about a BOD but NOT when he teaches that only heretics say no sacrament is necessary?
-
...and the Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena - a great gift from Above, are totally inadmissible!!!
"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena
Heaven must blush!!!!
Matthew 8:11-12
"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Still weaseling Andy?
Do you have it in you to start a thread and champion defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation or will you live the lie you've been living?
-
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:
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.
Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?
To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "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." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.
St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.
That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?
Do you deny that St. Alphonsus as well as all the others who preached a BOD did so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding or John 3:5 and / or Trent?
Do you think the saints have authority over the Councils?
I think he has more weight than you do and I do not think he violates Vatican I, because no good Catholic ever would take a Dogma out of context. Concerning this particular topic, I think people are more focused on being right and not on being holy.
I believe everyone on this site is trying his best to deal with an unprecedented crisis and apostasy, and I think there needs to be a little more mercy and understanding and a lot less condemnation.
-
To Cantarella:
What about this infallible dogmatic statement?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
World English Dictionary
OR
1 (ɔː, ( unstressed ) ə)
— conj
1. used to join alternatives: apples or pears ; apples or pears or cheese ; apples, pears, or cheese
God bless!
-
I posted this in another thread and I don't believe I got a response, I'll try again
I believe that if a catechumen who's learning the catholic faith , desires baptism but dies before actually receiving water baptism will have a chance to avoid hell, baptism of desire
what is implicit baptism of desire exactly? can you give me a que from a pope which supports implicit baptism of desire
-
To Cantarella:
What about this infallible dogmatic statement?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
The passage above is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. They are different. One can be initially justified and then go and condemn oneself anyway. Justification is the very initial transition. Salvation is the end when finally one is inserted into Christ for ever. Justification occurs on earth. Salvation is our entrance to Heaven. The dogma defended is : Unless you are baptized in water and Holy Ghost you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (Salvation).
Besides, in the mentioned passage, the Church is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. That is why this passage should not be used by BODers to defend their position. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism.
This translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver (water) of regeneration or the desire to receive it. The Church is clearly not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.
Simply stating that an element (in this case, desire for Baptism) cannot be missing in order for something to happen (Justification) is NOT the same than stating that the element being present will be sufficient to effect that Justification.
-
I think he has more weight than you do and I do not think he violates Vatican I, because no good Catholic ever would take a Dogma out of context. Concerning this particular topic, I think people are more focused on being right and not on being holy.
St. Alphonsus lived from 1696 - 1787.
The First Vatican Council 1868 - 1870
St. Alphonsus was clearly teaching his opinion of the decrees of Trent - and in the process even contradicted himself as we see one time he says only heretics say no sacrament is necessary and another time he says salvation can be had without the sacrament. This is fact and only fools who've blinded themselves will refuse to admit it.
His teachings were clearly trying to expand on what Trent actually said, but certainly anyone can see that some 100 years after the saint's death, V1 infallibly put an end to the practice of "interpreting" dogma, and from that time on, all are bound to maintain the exact meaning which has once been declared by holy mother church - period.
Again, if St. Alphonsus were to have been alive at the time of V1 and knew that the council infallibly declared that dogmas are to be understood "as declared", there is no way he would have done what BODers here continue to do - namely, twist the meaning of the infallible teachings to suit themselves - even after knowing that V1 binds us to understand dogma as they are declared.
From V1 on, no one is permitted to interpret any dogma for any reason. When Trent says the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation and that the sacrament of baptism is not optional - no one is permitted to add: "except in case of necessity" - or the actual sacrament can be replaced by the desire for the sacrament.
I believe everyone on this site is trying his best to deal with an unprecedented crisis and apostasy, and I think there needs to be a little more mercy and understanding and a lot less condemnation.
Perhaps the tone of some posts sound condemning, but when constantly dealing with outright dishonest opponents as most of the BODer participants here are, mercy and understanding will be in short supply.
The challenge I offered 3 months ago was, IMO, the best way to wake up the avid BODers - so they could see for themselves that it is impossible for them to defend the sacraments, because if they were honest, they would either admit, at least to themselves that they do not believe the sacraments are a necessity at all, as such, that they cannot defend that which they despise.
I hoped it was a means to show themselves they are in deep error since certainly they know it is a strictly Catholic thing to defend the necessity of the sacraments - - so if you cannot get yourself to do that, then you should be able to discover that there is a major malfunction within your own belief and thinking.
But, it hasn't worked, not yet any way.
-
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:
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.
Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?
To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "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." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.
St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.
That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?
Do you deny that St. Alphonsus as well as all the others who preached a BOD did so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding or John 3:5 and / or Trent?
Do you think the saints have authority over the Councils?
This is the exact understanding of John 3:5 that the Church has supplied
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Everyone is on the same page except you.
-
To Cantarella:
What about this infallible dogmatic statement?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
The passage above is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. They are different. One can be initially justified and then go and condemn oneself anyway. Justification is the very initial transition. Salvation is the end when finally one is inserted into Christ for ever. Justification occurs on earth. Salvation is our entrance to Heaven. The dogma defended is : Unless you are baptized in water and Holy Ghost you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (Salvation).
Besides, in the mentioned passage, the Church is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. That is why this passage should not be used by BODers to defend their position. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism.
This translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver (water) of regeneration or the desire to receive it. The Church is clearly not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.
Simply stating that an element (in this case, desire for Baptism) cannot be missing in order for something to happen (Justification) is NOT the same than stating that the element being present will be sufficient to effect that Justification.
Paul III wrote "...OR the desire...". Not "and" the desire. The implication is that justification may be obtained by one OR the other*-- when considering that all those who die in a justified state are saved, it then follows that those who die with the desire for baptism (provided that they are not in mortal sin) are saved.
The point is not that desire of baptism alone and in itself suffices to justify (which I don't think anyone has even argued) but that in so desiring baptism, one has removed an impediment to justification and, having met any and all other requirements for it, will be justified since his desire for baptism satisfies in lieu of being baptized with water.
*Obviously one who desires baptism is compelled to seek it; if he does not it is evident that he did not desire it and is therefore does not belong in our discussion.
-
To the BODer no sacrament, no explicit desire for baptism, no explicit desire to be a Catholic, no belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, none of those are required for salvation! So why do they debate 99% of the time about BOD & BOB of the catechumen?
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ
Dear Nishant,
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
-
To Cantarella:
What about this infallible dogmatic statement?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
The passage above is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. They are different. One can be initially justified and then go and condemn oneself anyway. Justification is the very initial transition. Salvation is the end when finally one is inserted into Christ for ever. Justification occurs on earth. Salvation is our entrance to Heaven. The dogma defended is : Unless you are baptized in water and Holy Ghost you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (Salvation).
Besides, in the mentioned passage, the Church is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. That is why this passage should not be used by BODers to defend their position. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism.
This translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver (water) of regeneration or the desire to receive it. The Church is clearly not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.
Simply stating that an element (in this case, desire for Baptism) cannot be missing in order for something to happen (Justification) is NOT the same than stating that the element being present will be sufficient to effect that Justification.
Paul III wrote "...OR the desire...". Not "and" the desire. The implication is that justification may be obtained by one OR the other*-- when considering that all those who die in a justified state are saved, it then follows that those who die with the desire for baptism (provided that they are not in mortal sin) are saved.
The point is not that desire of baptism alone and in itself suffices to justify (which I don't think anyone has even argued) but that in so desiring baptism, one has removed an impediment to justification and, having met any and all other requirements for it, will be justified since his desire for baptism satisfies in lieu of being baptized with water.
*Obviously one who desires baptism is compelled to seek it; if he does not it is evident that he did not desire it and is therefore does not belong in our discussion.
Yes, what I wrote above takes into consideration the "OR" part. Still, the passage is dealing with the initial transition of Justification, not Salvation. When you say, "those who die in a justified state are saved, it then follows that those who die with the desire for baptism (provided that they are not in mortal sin) are saved". I don't agree with the "it follows" part because you still need to have the Sacrament of Baptism before dying in order to remit Original Sin, which in itself suffices for damnation. We are under the law of the New Testament in which the Sacraments (3 of them actually) are absolutely needed for Salvation.
The Council of Trent allows the distinction between the actual reception of Baptism and the desire to receive it because a man in the Old Testament for example, could be justified but not saved yet. He was justified by Faith in the Messiah to come and a strict fulfillment of God's commandments. When those who died in the state of justification in the Old Testament died, they did not go to Heaven. They went to the Limbo of The Just until Jesus in flesh and blood led them to Salvation and opened the gates of Heaven for them in Ascension day. Likewise, in the New Testament justification does not necessarily follow Salvation. There is still absolute need of the Sacraments. In that passage,The Church is not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but simply stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.
Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the indispensable Sacraments though. This is because we are under the New Law of Salvation.
-
This is the exact understanding of John 3:5 that the Church has supplied
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Everyone is on the same page except you.
An annotation? :rolleyes:
Let us say that there has been indeed theological speculation (and even fallible Church teaching, let's concede) about Baptism of Desire / Blood. Do you think that back when these annotations were made (I have this same Bible version, this is XVI century, I believe, correct me if wrong) their authors could have possibly foresaw how Satan would pervert this teaching of Baptism of Desire for CATHECHUMENS? and blood for MARTYRS? into the abhorrent heresy of "invincible ignorance" we see nowadays, in which practically anyone not prone to mass murder can be saved? through invisible ties to the only true Faith?
The devil, our eternal enemy is very clever and full of charm. Nowadays he has the guise of "friendlessness" "tolerance" and "peace among everyone" and so it has corrupted BOD and under the disguise of false Ecuмenism and sentimental Universal Salvation, has mobilized as an invisible, intangible influence, even within the Church, confusing and moving away souls from the only true religion, outside of which there is no possible salvation.
-
Which three sacraments are "absolutely necessary" for salvation?
You should probably consider what the words "absolutely" and "necessary" mean before you answer.
The Catholic Church teaches that all those who die in a state of justification are saved. You cannot deny this, and you should retract your denial of it. I dare you to find a source that isn't Fr. Feeney to corroborate this belief.
-
Which three sacraments are "absolutely necessary" for salvation?
You should probably consider what the words "absolutely" and "necessary" mean before you answer.
The Catholic Church teaches that all those who die in a state of justification are saved. You cannot deny this, and you should retract your denial of it. I dare you to find a source that isn't Fr. Feeney to corroborate this belief.
Three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of Holy Orders is necessary to the Church, since we need Holy Priests.
I am not denying that those who die in a state of justification are saved. What I was emphasizing in the mentioned Trent quote is that we are dealing with different stages in the process of Salvation. Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. After that, we must persevere in the state of God's grace.
Please re-read my previous post. What I said was that in the mentioned passage the Church is dealing with the initial transition of Justification but not the actual ending Salvation, therefore it does not serve as proof for BOD. The Council of Trent stated that: “Justification is the change from the condition in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam into a state of grace and adoption among the children of God through the Second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior.” One could be initially justified and then through sin, damn oneself anyway. Again, justification is sealed through Baptism. Then, one must persevere in sanctifying grace.
“There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water.
-
This is the exact understanding of John 3:5 that the Church has supplied
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Everyone is on the same page except you.
An annotation? :rolleyes:
Let us say that there has been indeed theological speculation (and even fallible Church teaching, let's concede) about Baptism of Desire / Blood. Do you think that back when these annotations were made (I have this same Bible version, this is XVI century, I believe, correct me if wrong) their authors could have possibly foresaw how Satan would pervert this teaching of Baptism of Desire for CATHECHUMENS? and blood for MARTYRS? into the abhorrent heresy of "invincible ignorance" we see nowadays, in which practically anyone not prone to mass murder can be saved? through invisible ties to the only true Faith?
The devil, our eternal enemy is very clever and full of charm. Nowadays he has the guise of "friendlessness" "tolerance" and "peace among everyone" and so it has corrupted BOD and under the disguise of false Ecuмenism and sentimental Universal Salvation, has mobilized as an invisible, intangible influence, even within the Church, confusing and moving away souls from the only true religion, outside of which there is no possible salvation.
What you are doing is denying a truth because you see that truth distorted. You are condemning those who uphold that truth and assigning the distorted truth to them.
Invincible ignorance is not a doctrine, it is simply inculpable ignorance.
The truth is that you believe the Church is really an invisible entity of "true believers," those who see through the errors being taught by the Church Teaching.
-
This is the exact understanding of John 3:5 that the Church has supplied
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Everyone is on the same page except you.
This is the exact understanding of John 3:5 that the Church has supplied.
Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) --- Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)
Now honestly, since a BOD is only a metaphor, a BOD is excluded. You need to get on the same page as me - toss the page you are on above in the garbage where it belongs.
-
Your reading of Trent is completely wrong. You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without. You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent. I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens). But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.
Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous. Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER? This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball). But Trent doesn't use this construction. or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).
But what if I add the sentence:
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
Immediately disambiguated.
Now look at Trent.
We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.
Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.
Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will. AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS. So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".
Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification. Without BOTH there is no justification.
Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.
If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Why? Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION. If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.
Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent. Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).
Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.
So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR. In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.
It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.
-
Paul III wrote "...OR the desire...". Not "and" the desire. The implication is that justification may be obtained by one OR the other*-- when considering that all those who die in a justified state are saved,
See my destruction of your faulty logic above. So you claim that we can be justified by water without the will or desire for it? So if I go baptize someone who doesn't want to be baptized, they are justified? After all, you just turned this into an either ... or proposition.
In fact, your claim would be heretical, since Trent anathematized those who claim that justification can happen WITHOUT THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (the "votum"). In claiming that Trent teaches ONE OR THE OTHER, you turn Trent's statement into heresy that Trent itself anathematizes in the subsequent canons. You in fact claim that water alone without the will or desire is sufficient to justify, which was condemned as heresy in the canons.
-
I wish this topic had its own subforum, for crying out loud. It never ends.
Confining it to a sub-forum would be better than the present. There it could be ignored more easily. The SBC cult currently injects their errors into just about any thread possible.
This is absolutely true, and I for one fail to understand how this type of behavior is tolerated. Seriously, Church quote after Church quote has been provided to counter the misguided conclusions being propagated here by these unfortunate souls, yet, this circus parade of arrogant pride is allowed to continue without any recourse?
Can I just add my "here here" here? I left this site for about a year a few years back and when I returned the SBC heresy had spread like a cancer. I was somewhat surprised. I thought it was an issue that SSPX and SVs agreed on. The SSPX makes no bones about where they are on the issue as do all the SV clergy. Authoritative quotes have been posted clarifying the issue repeatedly. But the dogmatic anti-BOD/Bers are still allowed to post at will.
They are not interested in Bellarmine, Aquinas, Alphonsus, Pius XI and XII but only Feeney and the Dimonds. Can't they go home and start a forum of their own and leave this site alone?
-
Can't they go home and start a forum of their own and leave this site alone?
You are more than welcome to resume your hiatus from the forum, or simply ignore threads dealing with BoD.
I will not be silent about this matter because it's the Holy Catholic Faith and I will defend it to my dying breath. I thought about just quitting the BoD discussions myself, because it's obvious that you BoDers are all pertinacious in your beliefs and will not be convinced. But I continue on because I don't want some third party lurker or observer to be misled by your errors, so I combat them whenever I can. It would be much easier for me to just stop, shake the dust off my feet, and let you continue in your error. I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching and the dogmatic definitions of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Church and that to inquire further is forbidden (cf. Pius IX Singulari Quidam).
-
Ladislaus:
"I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching."
You do not believe in the Lord's teaching:
"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking."
The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena
Do you really believe God's providence has permitted a false teaching through the great St Catherine and only a tiny band of Fr Feeney adherents have been given the light to spot it?
Judith 11:16
"Because these things are told me by the providence of God."
"The truth is God has blinded you and the others as a punishment for your pride. It is not an honest error; in your secret hearts, you desire an exclusivity above others."
And your common dishonest methods of argumentation and belittling of others is proof against you.
John 5:7-9
"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
You won't make any progress on here anyway, because your opponents have been give the light by God to see:
As the Lord says:
Matthew 23:24
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."
If you look inside your souls, you will find the cause of the error is some inner deficiency in being subject to God's will.
-
Your reading of Trent is completely wrong. You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without. You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent. I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens). But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.
Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous. Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER? This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball). But Trent doesn't use this construction. or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).
But what if I add the sentence:
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
Immediately disambiguated.
Now look at Trent.
We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.
Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.
Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will. AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS. So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".
Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification. Without BOTH there is no justification.
Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.
If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Why? Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION. If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.
Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent. Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).
Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.
So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR. In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.
It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.
BODers say say that that one word in Trent means explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, meanwhile:
1) they deny that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are necessary for salvation!
2) they say that this clear DOGMA below from the Council of Florence, does not mean what it CLEARLY says:
To the BODer no sacrament, no explicit desire for baptism, no explicit desire to be a Catholic, no belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, none of those are required for salvation! So why do they debate 99% of the time about BOD & BOB of the catechumen?
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ
Dear Nishant,
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
-
Last time I checked St. Catherine of Siena DOES NOT EQUAL Our Lord.
Last time I checked private revelation does not equal public revelation or magisterium.
I've already addressed this dubious quote but you keep spamming this quote as if it's the one thing you have to justify BoD.
Finally, there's no indication that the BoD referred to in this quote is the EENS-denying version that you hold and promote.
-
Your reading of Trent is completely wrong. You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without. You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent. I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens). But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.
Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous. Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER? This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball). But Trent doesn't use this construction. or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).
But what if I add the sentence:
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
Immediately disambiguated.
Now look at Trent.
We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.
Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.
Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will. AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS. So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".
Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification. Without BOTH there is no justification.
Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.
If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Why? Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION. If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.
Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent. Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).
Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.
So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR. In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.
It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.
Brilliant post, Ladislaus :applause:. Thank you for clearing that up. I guess there is nothing else to say to Mr. Mithrandylan. Here is the original text of the passage in Latin.
"...in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest... . ..."
Again, these lines are referring to Justification, and Justification is only sealed through water Baptism.
-
Ladislaus/Bowler/Cantarella/Stubborn
At the end of the day, BoB and BoD are valid baptisms which make one a member of the church.
Fr Feeeney, having passed away, now knows this, as will you do when you die (but hopefully before.)
That is the end of the matter.
-
Invincible ignorance is not a doctrine, it is simply inculpable ignorance.
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation, since the Original Sin suffices for damnation and is only remitted by Baptism. No one can enter Heaven in state of Original Sin and one of the graces of Baptism is the remission of Original Sin.
Infallible Magisterium
Council of Florence:
"The effect of this sacrament (Baptism) is the remission of every sin, original and actual"
Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments"
Council of Florence:
" It is likewise defined that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds".
Pope Innocent III:
"The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".
From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation.
The dogma of "Outside of the Church there is no salvation," means that no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace and furthermore, that in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith. Baptism is the entrance and gateway to this spiritual life in Christ. This preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. Every Catholic must know and believe the truths of Salvation as well as receive the Sacraments dispensed by the Church to receive the necessary graces.
According to the Angelic Doctor himself, God in His mercy will lead the worthy, righteous, well disposed souls, to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation.
-
Ladislaus said:
"You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without."
Do you really think that would be the view of the millions of people who have read this docuмent? Why did the formulators of Trent not make it clear that they were using imprecise language?
1 Timothy 6:3-5
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth!
It's quiet a penance for those who understand to read all this turgid nonsense. It so simple that a young child easily grasp it.
But as the Lord said:
Luke 16:31
"And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead."
-
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation, since the Original Sin suffices for damnation and is only remitted by Baptism. No one can enter Heaven in state of Original Sin and one of the graces of Baptism is the remission of Original Sin.
Nobody is saying ignorance saves, culpable or inculpable.
-
Ladislaus/Bowler/Cantarella/Stubborn
At the end of the day, BoB and BoD are valid baptisms which make one a member of the church.
Fr Feeeney, having passed away, now knows this, as will you do when you die (but hopefully before.)
That is the end of the matter.
I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death — were he to come to life again — he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water.
Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good fight and preserves the Faith. - Fr. Feeney
-
At the end of the day, BoB and BoD are valid baptisms which make one a member of the church.
Firstly, even BoDers will say that BoB and BoD do not make people "members" of the Church.
Secondly, Translation = "No matter what you say or what reasons there might be against them, I have made up my mind to believe what I want to believe."
-
Ladislaus:
"I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching."
You do not believe in the Lord's teaching:
Please stop spamming this quote ever few posts in the thread. We've already addressed it. Now move along.
-
I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching and the dogmatic definitions of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Church and that to inquire further is forbidden (cf. Pius IX Singulari Quidam).
Inquire further for deeper understanding is indeed condemned. A dogma is to be believed in humility, exactly as the words state.
From the other thread: A defined dogma is what it is regardless of personal interpretation. There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess.3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, Ex-Cathedra Dogma >>>: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."
This doctrine made in First Vatican Council is vitally important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way that Satan attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them.
Outside the Church There is No Salvation There is no need to add anything to it or "understand” the dogmas in a different way than what the words themselves state and declare.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven which cannot be contradicted or altered in any way, and must be believed by all faithful.
Any one who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. Also, those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the Heavenly dogmatic teaching to the re-evaluation of fallible humans thereby inverting their authority.
There should not be interpretation of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as the liberal heretics like to emphasize; there is only what the Church has once declared.
-
Ladislaus said:
"You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without."
Do you really think that would be the view of the millions of people who have read this docuмent? Why did the formulators of Trent not make it clear that they were using imprecise language?
St. Robert Bellarmine, writing on the subject of whether catechumens can be saved, failed to cite Trent to support his opinion that they could be. Instead he relied on the very shaky reason "it would seem too harsh [to say otherwise]". In fact, had Trent defined BoD, it would have been impious of him to even ASK the question. That would be like me writing today asking the question, "Whether the pope is really infallible." And then having concluded in the affirmative not even to bother citing Vatican I. LIke Hans Kung's "Infallible? An Inquiry".
Seminary manuals in use AFTER Trent discussed BoD for catechumens as a "disputed question" and referred to the pro BoD side as the "Augustinian opinion".
You're asking to prove a negative, and the silence from sources like St. Bellarmine and the post-Trent theology manuals indicates that they did not see a definition of BoD in Trent. Since nobody took it that way in their time, you're not GOING to find a quotation that says "Trent did NOT teach BoD".
-
Ladislaus:
"I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching."
You do not believe in the Lord's teaching:
... let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry
-
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
-
Extract from : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of desire and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbutero 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".
If St. Alphonsus believed that Baptism of Desire was *De Fide*, then does that make him a heretic?
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
Latin- “Baptismus flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cuм voto explicito, vel implicito, veri baptismi fluminis, cujus vicem supplet (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omnem reatum poenae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritus Sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur.”
Notice the highlighted part, here St Alphonsus teaches that "BOD" does not provide the remission of the punishment due to sin, however, it is de fide dogma that the grace of Baptism, as defined infallibly, does indeed provides full remission of punishment due to sin, :scratchchin: then it follows that the BOD st Alphonsus is talking here, cannot provide the grace of Baptism, let alone salvation, as understood in the Infallible Church teaching. In the quote itself, we find then a denial of the efficacy of "desire" for Baptism.
Trent defines the absolute need to be born again in water and Holy Ghost in order to be justified. This means the removal of every punishment due to sin. There is then a contradiction in St Alphonsus quote since in it, we actually find that the BOD he is speaking of, is not sufficient to obtain this remission of sin, and therefore, justification, first step for Salvation, which is sealed by water Baptism.
-
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire ...
-
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire ...
.
-
I doubt that when St Alphonsus wrote his theological speculation about BOD for Catechumens and Martyrs only, he could have possible imagined that his words would be misused and exploited by the heretic liberals to distort truth.
This endless debate would be quite unnecessary if Catholics would just come to their senses again and believe the dogmas as they were for centuries and centuries before the Modernist heresy plagued the Church. Catholics always believed that one must die a Catholic in order to get to Heaven. It is plain simple. It is Satan himself in guise of "sentimental world unity" that is behind this utter distortion of BOD to undermine the key dogma of EENS.
There is not a single BODer here that does not also believe in invincible ignorance. Why is this so important to them? simply because BOD is a loophole in the doctrine of EENS that allows salvation for non-Catholics.
-
Which three sacraments are "absolutely necessary" for salvation?
You should probably consider what the words "absolutely" and "necessary" mean before you answer.
The Catholic Church teaches that all those who die in a state of justification are saved. You cannot deny this, and you should retract your denial of it. I dare you to find a source that isn't Fr. Feeney to corroborate this belief.
I am not denying that those who die in a state of justification are saved. What I was emphasizing in the mentioned Trent quote is that we are dealing with different stages in the process of Salvation. Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. After that, we must persevere in the state of God's grace.
Then you either do not grasp simple logic, or you mis-spoke when you said this:
Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the indispensable Sacraments though. This is because we are under the New Law of Salvation.
If a man dies justified, he goes to Heaven. But here you are saying that a man can be justified and NOT go to Heaven when you admit that justification can be obtained through BOD, but reserve salvation only for the justified who have received water baptism.
Final perseverance is the grace granted man to maintain his state of justification at the moment of death. You mention it as if it were something else. If a man dies justified, he has been granted the grace of final perseverance.
-
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire ...
.
I quote St. Alphonsus referencing Trent, and you quote nobody but supply us with the picture of a cat. Is this what Br. Andre has taught you?
-
Which three sacraments are "absolutely necessary" for salvation?
You should probably consider what the words "absolutely" and "necessary" mean before you answer.
The Catholic Church teaches that all those who die in a state of justification are saved. You cannot deny this, and you should retract your denial of it. I dare you to find a source that isn't Fr. Feeney to corroborate this belief.
I am not denying that those who die in a state of justification are saved. What I was emphasizing in the mentioned Trent quote is that we are dealing with different stages in the process of Salvation. Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. After that, we must persevere in the state of God's grace.
Then you either do not grasp simple logic, or you mis-spoke when you said this:
Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the indispensable Sacraments though. This is because we are under the New Law of Salvation.
If a man dies justified, he goes to Heaven. But here you are saying that a man can be justified and NOT go to Heaven when you admit that justification can be obtained through BOD, but reserve salvation only for the justified who have received water baptism.
Final perseverance is the grace granted man to maintain his state of justification at the moment of death. You mention it as if it were something else. If a man dies justified, he has been granted the grace of final perseverance.
Justification is the initial transition which must absolutely be sealed through Baptism. Never I said that Justification can be obtained through BOD. BOD simply do not exist. The whole point of my argument was that the mentioned Trent passage was talking about Justification and the elements necessary for it, not Salvation. Again, Justification is sealed and granted to us by Baptism and only water Baptism remits Original Sin.
You want to make an argument just for the sake of making an argument :rolleyes:.
In case you missed it, here is a more educated throughout response of Ladislaus regarding your "logic" point:
Your reading of Trent is completely wrong. You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without. You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent. I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens). But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.
Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous. Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER? This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball). But Trent doesn't use this construction. or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).
But what if I add the sentence:
Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
Immediately disambiguated.
Now look at Trent.
We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.
Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.
Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will. AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS. So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".
Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification. Without BOTH there is no justification.
Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.
If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Why? Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION. If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.
Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent. Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).
Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.
So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR. In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.
It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.
-
If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified, impossible to observe; let him be anathema (Canon18)
It follows that God will ensure that the justified of the New Law gets baptized, as Christ commanded. Baptism cannot be impossible to receive for the justified, since Our Lord has both revealed and commanded Baptism as necessary for eternal salvation. It is a defined dogma of Faith and nothing that God commands is impossible to fulfill. A worthy soul who is properly disposed, will never find it impossible to receive Baptism.
-
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).
If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).
As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.
-
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).
If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).
As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.
The baptized who die before the age of reason go straight to Heaven (they are considered part of the elect). They do not have Original Sin, having this been remitted through Baptism; and they are not guilty of actual sins since they still don't reach the age of reason.
I do know what I believe and here it is:
There has been some theological speculation and fallible Church teaching on BOD / BOB. We find it specially in what was printed after Modernism, but actually it started taking form after the Peace of Westphalia in which catholic monarchs started watering down the Faith for the purpose of co-existing with Protestant nations. Always this teaching has been in regards to catechumens and martyrs only . Never BOD has been defined de fide. No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.
Whereas I don't hold the BOD belief myself in any circuмstance (for the reason presented above, about God's omnipotence and promise to the elect), I would not have a problem with the concept of BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics.
-
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).
If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).
As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.
The baptized who die before the age of reason go straight to Heaven (they are considered part of the elect). They do not have Original Sin, having this been remitted through Baptism; and they are not guilty of actual sins since they still don't reach the age of reason. Yet they do not desire it, which sort of throws that whole "we can't play baseball without a bat or a ball" analogy.
I do know what I believe and here it is:
There has been some theological speculation and fallible Church teaching on BOD / BOB. We find it specially in what was printed after Modernism, but actually it started taking form after the Peace of Westphalia in which catholic monarchs started watering down the Faith for the purpose of co-existing with Protestant nations. Always this teaching has been in regards to catechumens and martyrs only . Never BOD has been defined de fide. No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.
Whereas I don't hold the BOD belief myself in any circuмstance (for the reason presented above, about God's omnipotence and promise to the elect), I would not have a problem with the concept of BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics. So you have some non-negotiable and strict position which is somehow conceptually negotiable and lenient, and this belief of yours exists because of modernism. Think about that for a while.
-
I never said that I believed in BoD for catechumens, just that I do not call that heresy and recognize that the Church has always tolerated the opinion. My issue is with those who twist BoD into a denial of EENS.
-
Don't you? My mistake then. I was almost certain that you did.
-
Don't you? My mistake then. I was almost certain that you did.
He is at least consistent in espousing his heresy. As far as I can tell, he has constantly denied Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire. He ignores the Council of Trent, the teaching of the Popes, the Code, The Holy Office, Doctors, theologians, catechisms and saints all in favor of a heresy he most likely learned from the Dimonds or the SBC.
-
Thank you, Ambrose, for defending Catholic doctrine.
Thank you for the kind words. Please pray for me, my brother in the Faith.
-
.
-
Don't you? My mistake then. I was almost certain that you did.
You're right that I constantly distinguish between the two and have said that I wouldn't spent a lot of time arguing the point against someone who believed in BoD proper, and that my issue is with the kind of BoD that undermines EENS.
With regard to BoD proper, I have pondered the question and have read extensively about it, and find the reasons AGAINST it much more compelling than the reasons FOR it. In fact, I don't find any actual hard evidence for it. It appears to be nothing more than the product of speculative theology.
I find several compelling reasons to reject it.
But I acknowledge that the Church has long tolerated this opinion and do not presume to condemn those whom the Church has not condemned. So, as you can see, I am not a Dimond "dittohead", as it were. Dimonds say that even BoD for catechumens is heretical. I have multiple points of disagreement with them.
I have pondered these questions for years, have read voluminously about the subject, including from the original Greek and Latin of the Fathers, and many other sources. I have prayed about these questions, have asked God to enlighten me about it, to always lead me to the truth. I am not shooting from the hip here and just grinding some axe.
I have been accused of being a mindless Dimond follower, of having succuмbed to SBC propaganda, and even of rejecting BoD due to not wanting souls to be saved (by the local prophet). None of these could be further from the truth.
-
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).
If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).
As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.
The baptized who die before the age of reason go straight to Heaven (they are considered part of the elect). They do not have Original Sin, having this been remitted through Baptism; and they are not guilty of actual sins since they still don't reach the age of reason. Yet they do not desire it, which sort of throws that whole "we can't play baseball without a bat or a ball" analogy.
I do know what I believe and here it is:
There has been some theological speculation and fallible Church teaching on BOD / BOB. We find it specially in what was printed after Modernism, but actually it started taking form after the Peace of Westphalia in which catholic monarchs started watering down the Faith for the purpose of co-existing with Protestant nations. Always this teaching has been in regards to catechumens and martyrs only . Never BOD has been defined de fide. No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.
Whereas I don't hold the BOD belief myself in any circuмstance (for the reason presented above, about God's omnipotence and promise to the elect), I would not have a problem with the concept of BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics. So you have some non-negotiable and strict position which is somehow conceptually negotiable and lenient, and this belief of yours exists because of modernism. Think about that for a while.
I guess I should have said: I would not be discussing (instead of "I would not have a problem" with BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics.
As for the baptized who die before the age of reason who cannot make an act of faith, here is the Church Infallible teaching:
Pope Innocent III Apostoli Letter on Baptism
For they maintain that it is useless to confer Baptism on infants. Our answer is that Baptism has taken the place of circuмcision. Therefore as "the soul of the circuмcised was not destroyed out of his people", so shall he who is born again of water and the Holy Spirit gain entrance into the kingdom of Heaven....But through the Sacrament of Baptism sin is remitted and entrance is gained to the kingdom of Heaven. For it would not be fitting that all little children, so many of whom die each day, perish without having some remedy for salvation provided for them by the merciful God, who wishes no one should perish.
Council of Trent, Canon 13 on Baptism
If anyone says that because infants do not make an act of faith, they are not to be numbered among the faithful after they receive Baptism and, moreover, that they are to be re baptized when they come to the use of reason; or if anyone says that it is better to omit the baptism of infants rather than to baptize, merely in the faith of the Church, those who do not believe by an act of their own: let it be anathema.
Pope Leo XIII Apostolic Letter Gratae Vehementer 1899
venerable Brethren, with pastoral zeal you deplore the now well known abuse which postpones the administration of Holy Baptism of infants for weeks, months, nay even for years, and you have done all in your power to banish this abuse. In truth, there is nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical laws, for not only does it, with unforgivable audacity, put it in evident danger the eternal salvation of many souls, but still more it undoubtly deprives them in this period of waiting of the ineffable gifts of sanctifying grace which are infused by the waters of regeneration. We cannot but approach and condemn this abuse with all Our might as detestable in God's sight.
-
PS -- your argument from the unbaptized person before the age of reason does not apply.
Read Trent. BoDers like to quote the one line out of context, but the entire passage in Trent (in which your misinterpreted quote exists) is referring the "ADULTS". Have a look. Purely infused faith can be had by children without the intellectual assent to the faith. This cannot happen with adults. Trent in fact anathematizes the proposition that justification can happen in adults without the proper dispositions (including assent to faith). In fact, it's the major POINT of this teaching. Trent wasn't teaching BoD. Trent was teaching about the relationship between the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and the cooperation of the free-will, against the Protestant errors.
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, ... [and what follows]
-
Anyone who denies that souls have been saved by baptism of desire and blood, is guilty of objective mortal sin, because he denies a proposition that is theologically certain, inextricably bound up with Catholic doctrine. Funnily enough, inculpable ignorance alone would excuse you of subjective guilt. Yet you don't believe in it, and make no allowance for it in your judgments, and it is characteristic of divine Justice to judge you by the same standard with which you judged others.
You propagators of this error should cease and desist, and humbly confess the Catholic doctrine.
As for the baptized who die before the age of reason who cannot make an act of faith, here is the Church Infallible teaching:
Pope Innocent III Apostoli Letter on Baptism
So now Pope Innocent is infallible in some letters and not in others?
To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.
This is the teaching that the Magisterium has approved. Irrelevant to what was held before, at least after the letter, no one is permitted to hold the contrary. And in fact no one did, all Catholic schools, all theologians, all Saints and Doctors after this point in time teach that there are souls saved by baptism of desire.
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 to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith
Anyone who denies that souls are saved by baptism of desire and blood is guilty of mortal sin.
-
Anyone who denies that souls are saved by baptism of desire and blood is guilty of mortal sin.
Nonsense. Firstly, you like all BoDers hide behind BoD as justification for your heretical rejection of EENS. Both these quotes refer to explicit BoD.
Secondly, these are non-infallible teachings, and the first is even if dubious origin and just generally bizarre in its oxymoronic reference to an "unbaptized priest".
As you can see, Innocent II is relying upon Augustine and not even teaching of his own authority, and it's nothing more than an opinion communicated in a non-magisterial letter. Augustine by the way never held to this as anything more than a theological opinion which, oh by the way, he later retracted.
-
As I have repeatedly pointed out, and none of you have the honesty or decency to admit it, all of these even quasi-authoritative quotes refer to EXPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE. Yet you twist this diabolically and pretend that this supports your heretical assertion that those who do not confess the faith can be saved. Both of these quotes refer to the possibility of their being saved by virtue of their "faith in the Sacrament", which I'm sure the Hindu in Tibet has also.
-
Not to mention that these quotes are both erroneous even on the surface. "Faith" by itself cannot be salvific. It also requires that the soul have charity and be in a state of grace, and Innocent III has absolutely zero idea that this Jew would have "rushed to heaven without delay". In fact, here he contradicts St. Alphonsus who says that temporal punishment due to sin isn't remitted by BoD. Either that or you can say that St. Alphonsus committed a grave error on the matter in having contradicted Innocent III. Oh, but St. Alphonsus make a mistake? Never.
-
http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Articles.php?id=654&title=17.+Some+Other+Objections&category=Outside+the+Catholic+Church+there+is+no+Salvation&page=2
POPE INNOCENT II
OBJECTION? Pope Innocent II taught that a priest could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it and his confession of the true faith (Denzinger 388):
“To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, ‘Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.’ Read again in the book of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Apostolicam Sedem).”391
ANSWER? First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not been baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is not infallible. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly non?magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.
To illustrate the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter allegedly from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire and Deception (pp. 31? 32):
“We speak of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope Innocent II (1130?1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of Cremona. The latter had written an inquiry to the Pope regarding the case of a priest who apparently had died without being baptized. Of course, it has been defined that, in such a case, he was no priest, since the sacrament of orders may only be conferred validly upon the baptized.
???? Text of letter omitted because it has been listed already ????
“Now, there are more than a few problems connected with this letter. Firstly, it depends entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for its conclusion. Its premises are false, as the Fathers in question did not actually hold the opinions herein imputed to them. (author: as noted a mere sentimental speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as official teaching)…
“Lastly, there is even a question of who wrote this letter. Many authorities ascribe it to Innocent III (1198?1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger. The letter is certainly not in keeping with the totality of his declarations either. In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter of uncertain date, authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and contradicting innumerable indisputably valid and solemn docuмents, is pretended to carry the weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders. Were any other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not even be given any consideration. As we shall see, however, mystification and deception are part and parcel of the history of this topic of Salvation. Perhaps this letter was attributed to Innocent III because of his statement that the words of consecration at Mass do not actually have to be said by the priest, but only thought internally ?? a sort of Eucharist by Desire. Later Saint Thomas Aquinas took him to task on this point.
“But Innocent III is indeed the key to understanding the original teaching of the Church on this topic. It was in his time (as always until the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore) forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic parents) in consecrated ground. He explained the rationale for this law, writing: ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive’ (Decr. III, XXVIII, xii).” ? end of transcript from Desire and Deception.
These considerations dismiss any argument in favor of baptism of desire from this letter. The letter, while certainly not infallible, may indeed be a forgery.
POPE INNOCENT III
OBJECTION? Pope Innocent III taught that a person who baptized himself could be saved by the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Innocent III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “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.,” 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 to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”392
This proves the theory of baptism of desire.
ANSWER? It is true that Pope Innocent III apparently said that a person who baptized himself could be saved by his desire for the sacrament, but it is false to say that this proves the theory of baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is disproved by the infallible teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. But the first thing that should be said about this letter from Innocent III is that a letter to the Bishop of Metz does not meet the requirements for an infallible pronouncement. This is a fact hardly anyone would dispute.
To prove this point consider the following: In the letter Ex parte tua, Jan. 12, 1206, the same Innocent III teaches that original sin was remitted by the mystery of circuмcision.
Pope Innocent III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206: “Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circuмcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”393
This is definitely wrong, since the Council of Trent defined as a dogma (Session VI, Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.394
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas all men [*except the Blessed Virgin ? as Trent says in Sess. V*] had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath… but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom…”395
In other words, not even the observance of Circuмcision and the rest of the Mosaic Law enabled Jews to be freed from original sin (de fide), contrary to what Innocent III taught in his letter Ex parte tua. So we have Innocent III teaching blatant error in the letter Ex parte tua to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons. Since Ex parte tua is at least as authoritative as the other two statements allegedly from Innocent II and Innocent III, which are often quoted by baptism of desire supporters, it proves that they are likewise fallible and non?Magisterial. And this is the kind of “evidence” which baptism of desire supporters try to bring forth from the Papal Magisterium: a dubious letter alleged to be from Innocent II – with no date or addressee – and a letter from Innocent III to an archbishop, which ranks on the same level as Ex Parte Tua which contains things contrary to Catholic dogma. The evidence in favor of baptism of desire from the infallible Papal Magisterium is zero.
In fact, as mentioned already, it was during Innocent III’s time forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic parents) in consecrated ground. And it is the infallible teaching of the same Pope at the Fourth Lateran Council which affirms the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”396
“The faithful” only includes those baptized with water, as section 6 of this docuмent proves.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”397
And here is another statement from the same Pope which, though not infallible, insists on the absolute necessity of rebirth in water.
Pope Innocent III, letter to Thorias, Archbishop of Nidaros: “You have asked whether children ought to be regarded as Christians whom, when in danger of death, on account of scarcity of water and absence of a priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head and the breast, and between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism. We answer that since in baptism two things always, that is, ‘the word and the element,’ are required by necessity, according to which Truth says concerning the word: ‘Going into the world etc.’ [Luke
16:15; Matt. 28:19], and the same concerning the element says: ‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”398
Perhaps Pope Innocent III’s blunders in his fallible capacity as pope are the reason we read the following vision about him barely avoiding Hell and being allegedly condemned to suffer in Purgatory until the end of the world.
“In The Mourning of the Dove, St. Robert Bellarmine (+ c. 1600) tells us about a person appearing to St. Lutgarde all clothed in flame and in much pain. When St. Lutgarde asked him who he was, he answered her: ‘I am [Pope] Innocent III, who should have been condemned to eternal Hell?fire for several grievous sins, had not the Mother of God interceded for me in my agony and obtained for me the grace of repentance. Now I am destined to suffer in Purgatory till the End of the World, unless you help me. Once again the Mother of Mercy has allowed me to come to ask you for your prayers.’”399
-
And I call your attention to the following from Innocent III:
‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”
So he's teaching that BOTH water AND the Holy Spirit are required, and that if EITHER is missing one cannot have true baptism, i.e. your twisted notion of interpreting Our Lord's words as "water OR ELSE AT LEAST the Holy Spirit" would herein be condemned.
-
It would be refreshing to find even a modicuм of sincerity and honesty among you BoDers, but I have not found any yet.
You won't even admit that all these quotes you pull out are referring to EXPLICIT BOD (of the catechumen, of someone who accepts and confesses the Catholic Faith). When I point this out, I get a flurry of downthumbs but never responses.
You use BoD as cover for your heretical denial of EENS, just as the modernists used BoD to undermine EENS and bring us Vatican II.
-
Let me quote again from the pseudo Innocent II that YOU cited:
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 joy of the heavenly fatherland
EXPLICIT BOD.
These quotes actually condemn you and yet you are so caught up in your dishonest insincere crusade that you won't even realized. You are condemned by your own quotes.
-
St. Fulgentius was cited earlier as a proponent of BoD. Let's look at what St. Fulgentius really taught.
Let no doubt shake our mind from this view; let no one say that a man is saved unless he comes to this bodily immersion; at any rate let us not say that he can be saved without the sacrament of baptism purely on the confession of faith. For he who believes and is baptized, will be saved. And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith: we maintain that it was through the sacrament of baptism that he was saved. If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed. But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration. Thus he asked for the gift of holy regeneration as God desired; and so, since God desired it, God gave it. (St. Fulgentius, Ep. 12, 8, 19 = PL 65, 388)
So how is it that BoDers dishonestly claim that he taught BoD?
From that time at which our Savior said: "If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ," 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
So St. Fulgentius held that BoB was possible for those who confessed the Catholic faith and were "in the Catholic Church".
So, to summarize St. Fulgentius:
BoD -- REJECTED
BoB -- HELD FOR THOSE IN THE CHURCH
Yet the dishonest BoDers (including the incredibly deceitful Fr. Laisney) promote St. Fulgentius as a BoD advocate and and therefore as a promoter of the "TRUE INTERPRETATION OF EENS" (according to Laisney).
Really?
Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.
Yet I'm sure if you asked St. Fulgentius, he'd tell you, like Bishop Fellay, that the Hindu in Tibet can be saved, or like Archbishop Lefebvre, that people in various assorted religious can be saved without confessing the Catholic faith.
Read and ponder and imbibe these words of St. Fulgentius and his spirit, and then come back and tell me whether they're in the least bit compatible with your heretical ideas that non-Catholics can be saved.
You do not have the same faith as St. Fulgentius, or as any of the Fathers, or as any of the Doctors, but are in league with a flurry of modernist theologians beginning with the Illuminati-driven "Enlightenment" era of philosophical subjectivism.
-
Now let's look at something else.
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...
Same language.
Now let's finish the quote from St. Fulgentius.
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.
This analogy with the language of St. Fulgentius actually backs my interpretation of the catechism of Trent, which you'll find was to take the term "avail" exactly in the same sense as St. Fulgentius used it.
-
Father Laisney the Liar:
Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire ... It is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.
Exposed as a complete liar. There were at least 4-5 Fathers who explicitly rejected BoD (including St. Fulgentius above).
-
And I call your attention to the following from Innocent III:
‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”
So he's teaching that BOTH water AND the Holy Spirit are required, and that if EITHER is missing one cannot have true baptism, i.e. your twisted notion of interpreting Our Lord's words as "water OR ELSE AT LEAST the Holy Spirit" would herein be condemned.
In actuality, reality, and context, the quote reads:
[From the letter "Non ut apponeres" to Thorias Archbishop of Nidaros]
412 You have asked whether children ought to be regarded as Christians whom, when in danger of death, on account of the scarcity of water and the absence of a priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head and the breast, and between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism. We answer that since in baptism two things always, that is, "the word and the element," are required by necessity, according to which Truth says concerning the word: "Going into the world etc." [Luke 16:15; cf. Matt. 28:19], and the same concerning the element says: "Unless anyone etc." [John 3:5 ] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.
The requirements are "word and element"; The matter and form of the Sacrament. It would be a logical fallacy to apply this to the topic of the thread, Baptism of Desire, as you have done in your example
Continuing, and quoting you, "I call your attention to the following from Innocent III:"
[From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206]
413 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 to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.
-
Father Laisney the Liar:
Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire ... It is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.
Exposed as a complete liar. There were at least 4-5 Fathers who explicitly rejected BoD (including St. Fulgentius above).
Ladi, you have no source for what you believe, other than yourself. You are opposed to Catholics learning from approved catechisms and manuals, encouraging them to do their own theology from first sources. Your system leads the unsuspecting into error, or directly influences those who give your rumblings some weight when they have ZERO weight.
Your posting here is unorthodox and you should be banned. Matthew is wrong for allowing you to teach others your errors here.
-
As I have repeatedly pointed out, and none of you have the honesty or decency to admit it, all of these even quasi-authoritative quotes refer to EXPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE. Yet you twist this diabolically and pretend that this supports your heretical assertion that those who do not confess the faith can be saved. Both of these quotes refer to the possibility of their being saved by virtue of their "faith in the Sacrament", which I'm sure the Hindu in Tibet has also.
The topic of discussion is Baptism of Desire, the manner and method of which is exclusively the purview of God. No one here has represented anything other than what the Church has taught. It is dishonest on your part when you conjure up some deformity and attribute it to others.
If you can not conduct yourself in a civil manner, there is really no point in communicating with you, and if that is so, I will simply elect to HIDE your participation here as I have done with pathetic bowler.
-
Anyone who denies that souls have been saved by baptism of desire and blood, is guilty of objective mortal sin, because he denies a proposition that is theologically certain, inextricably bound up with Catholic doctrine. Funnily enough, inculpable ignorance alone would excuse you of subjective guilt. Yet you don't believe in it, and make no allowance for it in your judgments, and it is characteristic of divine Justice to judge you by the same standard with which you judged others.
You propagators of this error should cease and desist, and humbly confess the Catholic doctrine.
As for the baptized who die before the age of reason who cannot make an act of faith, here is the Church Infallible teaching:
Pope Innocent III Apostoli Letter on Baptism
So now Pope Innocent is infallible in some letters and not in others?
To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.
This is the teaching that the Magisterium has approved. Irrelevant to what was held before, at least after the letter, no one is permitted to hold the contrary. And in fact no one did, all Catholic schools, all theologians, all Saints and Doctors after this point in time teach that there are souls saved by baptism of desire.
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 to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith
Anyone who denies that souls are saved by baptism of desire and blood is guilty of mortal sin.
No. An implicit faith is not sufficient. A person that has reached the age of reason, is obliged to profess an explicit belief in the Holy Trinity, The Incarnation, and the Catholic Faith before they die. This truth is necessary to believe for Salvation as a necessity of means.
Pope Eugene IV Exultate Deo ex cathedra:
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all else to hld the Catholic Faith: unless each one preserve this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity...then he defines the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the necessity to believe in these truths...This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
Again, an implicit faith / desire is not enough and furthermore, we are obliged to believe this truth. There is the necessity to explicitly believe and profess the Catholic Faith. Popes such as Pius X, Clement XI, Pius IX all have reaffirm and re-stated this dogma. BODers have fallen pray of liberal ideas and false notions concerning ecuмenism and universal salvation. Watered down, lukewarm Catholics are the real enemies of the Faith and a real thread for the purity of it.
-
It would be a logical fallacy to apply this to the topic of the thread, Baptism of Desire, as you have done in your example.
No, it applies because he reads it as a BOTH ... AND rather than your (mis)interpreted EITHER ... OR.
As for the other Innocent III quote, see my posts where that's completely discredited.
-
Your posting here is unorthodox and you should be banned. Matthew is wrong for allowing you to teach others your errors here.
I "teach" no one; I am in no way part of the Ecclesia Docens.
-
Your posting here is unorthodox and you should be banned. Matthew is wrong for allowing you to teach others your errors here.
How astonishing that posting the Faith of the Fathers has now become "unorthodox". You would condemn St. Fulgentius as a heretic were he alive today.
Will there be any faith left on earth when Our Lord returns?
-
It would be a logical fallacy to apply this to the topic of the thread, Baptism of Desire, as you have done in your example.
No, it applies because he reads it as a BOTH ... AND rather than your (mis)interpreted EITHER ... OR.
As for the other Innocent III quote, see my posts where that's completely discredited.
You are missing the point; The Sacrament of Baptism requires (as does any of the Sacraments) matter and form - in this case water and spoken words. Here is the point, the Sacrament of Baptism AND Baptism of Desire are two different things, one is a Sacrament, the other is not. The requirements for a Sacrament, matter and form, do not apply to Baptism of Desire (although, speculatively, in the case of Baptism of Desire, perfect contrition and an untimely death might appear as prerequisites).
-
Your posting here is unorthodox and you should be banned. Matthew is wrong for allowing you to teach others your errors here.
How astonishing that posting the Faith of the Fathers has now become "unorthodox". You would condemn St. Fulgentius as a heretic were he alive today.
Will there be any faith left on earth when Our Lord returns?
In my opinion, I agree with SJB; The methods you employ are unorthodox, and you condemn others for not agreeing with your own opinions. You have provided no indication that you are authorized in any way to provide commentary of Church teaching. Your revelations are private, and in no way binding on others. I personally find your comments rude and condescending, you lack charity, and if you should be banned by Matthew, I would enjoy the fellowship here significantly more.
-
Baptism of "Desire" does not remit Original Sin. One of the graces of the Sacrament of Baptism is the remission of Original Sin. No soul in Heaven is stained with Sin, Original or actual. If Baptism of Desire is not the real Sacrament as BODers concede, then what it is?
The Sacrament of Baptism provides the mark placed upon the soul which actually give it a share in the Divine nature and royal priesthood of Christ Our Lord. Baptism makes us part of the Church, of the mystical Body of Christ. The desire for Baptism simply cannot provide this. See the infallible teaching below:
Pope Pius XII
By the waters of Baptism, by the general title of Christian they are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the priest, and by the "character" as it were, imprinted upon their souls, they are assigned to divine worship; and so they participate in the priesthood of Christ himself, according to their condition...
There is only ONE Baptism for the remission of sins. The Church solemnly condemns those who turn water into a metaphor.
Pope Pius IX
Let us hold most firmly that our Catholic doctrine, there is ONE GOD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. To try and inquire further in unlawful.
-
ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
That encyclical has nothing to do with the discussion, your posting it shows that you have no evidence, your frustration. That is called an end run, and circular logic. You don't like what someone posts, so you call it a false doctrine by your own cojones, then post QUANTO CONFICIAMUR.
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. You are denying clear dogma.
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved without explicit belief in Christ
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)
BODers deny Creeds
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:
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."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
Your posting here is unorthodox and you should be banned. Matthew is wrong for allowing you to teach others your errors here.
I "teach" no one; I am in no way part of the Ecclesia Docens.
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladislaus, I think it is obvious that God has allowed them to blind themselves completely because for all the authorities which have been posted teaching the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation - they keep saying that they do not see any of them.
I am of the opinion that these hypocrites will never wake up, and I wonder if in their last hour that they themselves will get the chance to depend on Extreme Unction of Desire and see how that works for them.
For their sakes, when their turn comes, I hope they are in sanctifying grace, but if not, I hope they're conscious and can muster the same contrition and desire that they've been preaching - to save their soul, as I personally do not believe they should expect God to send them a priest to give them the sacrament after they've repeatedly preached no sacrament is necessary.
By the time they wake up, I fear it will be too late. I keep them in my prayers.
-
Baptism of "Desire" does not remit Original Sin. One of the graces of the Sacrament of Baptism is the remission of Original Sin. No soul in Heaven is stained with Sin, Original or actual. If Baptism of Desire is not the real Sacrament as BODers concede, then what it is?
Here, I'll help you. When you die, and your approaching Saint Peter at the very shinny Gates, there is a small sign along the garden path directing those carried by desire to a beautiful gazebo covered baptismal font.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladislaus, I think it is obvious that God has allowed them to blind themselves completely because for all the authorities which have been posted teaching the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation - they keep saying that they do not see any of them.
No one here is saying the Sacraments are not necessary for Salvation. You keep inflating this target and trying to pin it on people. Seriously, what is wrong with you? It seems impossible for you to communicate without being rude, or condescending, or offensive.
I am of the opinion that these hypocrites will never wake up, and I wonder if in their last hour that they themselves will get the chance to depend on Extreme Unction of Desire and see how that works for them.
Your sarcasm is absolutely unacceptable behavior.
I'm pretty spiritually exhausted by your company.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladislaus, I think it is obvious that God has allowed them to blind themselves completely because for all the authorities which have been posted teaching the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation - they keep saying that they do not see any of them.
No one here is saying the Sacraments are not necessary for Salvation. You keep inflating this target and trying to pin it on people. Seriously, what is wrong with you? It seems impossible for you to communicate without being rude, or condescending, or offensive.
It is as I said - you have blinded yourself of your own free will.
You cannot conceive that by you saying salvation is attainable via a BOD, which is not a sacrament, you are saying that no sacrament at all is necessary for salvation.
I am of the opinion that these hypocrites will never wake up, and I wonder if in their last hour that they themselves will get the chance to depend on Extreme Unction of Desire and see how that works for them.
Your sarcasm is absolutely unacceptable behavior.
I'm pretty spiritually exhausted by your company.
That is sincere, not sarcasm, not by any stretch of your imagination.
If in your mind it is sarcasm, you are further gone than I thought.
If you think that you rate a priest "in case of necessity" when you've been preaching contrition and desire will save an unbaptized person, IMO, you are in for a rude awakening.
Is that a pleasant thing for me to say? No, yet I say it with the hope that you will stop preaching salvation without any sacrament at all, if for no other reason than for your own good - literally.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladi, you quote them and then explain how they teach us that the theologians and catechisms and the rest are all wrong. That's like a Protestant quoting scripture and maybe some ancient Church Fathers ... and explaining how the Catholic Church is wrong.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladi, you quote them and then explain how they teach us that the theologians and catechisms and the rest are all wrong. That's like a Protestant quoting scripture and maybe some ancient Church Fathers ... and explaining how the Catholic Church is wrong.
If you are right then you condemn yourself. You claim all the theologians got it wrong since the 1960s.
But you have no answer to this.
-
You know, at the end of the day, we'll have to just wait for the Holy Pope that God will send to restore the Church. So many have been so deeply poisoned by the modernism that there can be no other remedy.
I pray for that Pope whom God will raise up to reaffirm the dogma EENS and to condemn at least the distorted version of BoD (aka FoD). I long for the day when everyone will return to the Faith of the Fathers.
Will there be any faith left when Our Lord returns?
In the meantime, I am indeed consoled by those of you I have encountered here who still cling to that Faith.
Thanks, that is why we are here, to speak truth.
As for me, I was surprised that these BODers like Ambrose, SJB, LOT, and Anthonywhatever, Nishant and such, when confronted with the challenge of defending the theory of salvation by implicit faith in Christ (the teaching that someone who has no explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity can be saved) isolated by itself, still fight the same as if we were talking about BOD & BOB of the catechumen. I really did not believe they were that far gone. I expected that when they were presented with the fact that it was taught by no Father, Doctor, Saint, council, and that moreover that it is a declared dogma (and in the ancient Athanasian creed) that for one to be saved one must believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, I really expected them to change their ways, however, I can see now that they are lost. Indeed BOD & BOB must be like a drug, in that it ends in sheer lunacy, denying clear dogma, and abandoning all common sense, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and councils!
ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
That encyclical has nothing to do with the discussion, your posting it shows that you have no evidence, your frustration. That is called an end run, and circular logic. You don't like what someone posts, so you call it a false doctrine by your own cojones, then post QUANTO CONFICIAMUR.
It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. You are denying clear dogma.
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved without explicit belief in Christ
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.
BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)
BODers deny Creeds
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:
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."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladi, you quote them and then explain how they teach us that the theologians and catechisms and the rest are all wrong. That's like a Protestant quoting scripture and maybe some ancient Church Fathers ... and explaining how the Catholic Church is wrong.
If you are right then you condemn yourself. You claim all the theologians got it wrong since the 1960s.
But you have no answer to this.
You keep saying this over and over like a broken record. We are only talking about Catholic theologians, not non-Catholic theologians!
Those that lost their Faith in the mid-1960's, lost their membership in the Church, and by that cannot be called Catholic theologians.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
You quote and privately interpret them.
-
You keep saying this over and over like a broken record. We are only talking about Catholic theologians, not non-Catholic theologians!
Those that lost their Faith in the mid-1960's, lost their membership in the Church, and by that cannot be called Catholic theologians.
Many traditional Catholics are stuck in the 60's. Do you think that all the Church problems appear overnight after Vatican II? If you do, you are not seeing the big picture. A careful study of Church history is very much needed. We are still living under the heresy of Modernism that started way before Vatican II. And before then, there were other many heresies from which always the Church came out victorious. Arianism and Protestantism come to mind. But we indeed have the promise of victory! although the enemy has always been there and his method is similar: He always wants to turn Catholics away from the purity of Faith by setting "ambiguity" "relativism" "confusion" "division" "human unity" (at the expense of losing the Faith as is).
Many trads condemn the alleged heresies of the conciliar popes, and then go and adhere to the same heresies anyway, therefore being part of the same unclean spirit from Vatican II. What exactly is the heresy of the conciliar popes that you already don't believe in anyway?
Nothing is new under the sun. The enemy, Satan, has always been there, since the beginning of times just under a different guise. Catholic dogmas must be believed as they were always revealed. To say otherwise is to be a part of the problem.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladi, you quote them and then explain how they teach us that the theologians and catechisms and the rest are all wrong. That's like a Protestant quoting scripture and maybe some ancient Church Fathers ... and explaining how the Catholic Church is wrong.
If you are right then you condemn yourself. You claim all the theologians got it wrong since the 1960s.
But you have no answer to this.
You keep saying this over and over like a broken record. We are only talking about Catholic theologians, not non-Catholic theologians!
Those that lost their Faith in the mid-1960's, lost their membership in the Church, and by that cannot be called Catholic theologians.
All of them?? So all the theologians before the 1960s were rock solid?
You don't learn from theologians as you claim..YOU decide whether they are orthodox or not.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
You quote and privately interpret them.
Dogma is to be understood as declared, not interpreted. That is the only way for all to have the same, universal understanding and universal belief of dogma.
Ambrose, can you honestly say that this infallible decree from Vi (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм20.htm) means that dogmas are to be interpreted?
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.
It is in Chapter 4, "On faith and reason" that the Council explains why dogma is not to be interpreted, why dogma is to be understood as "once declared" - you and all BODers should devote 4 minutes of your time and read it.
I am still waiting for you to do the strictly Catholic thing and start a thread and champion defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - that is, after all, the duty of all Catholics.
Or will you finally admit that to do such a thing is an absolute impossibility for you to even consider?
You really should admit that for you and your other BOD cohorts to team up in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation is just as impossible for you to do as it would be for me and my cohorts to start and champion a thread defending the necessity of a BOD unto salvation.
Have you thought about that? You should. You really should.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
You quote and privately interpret them.
Hmmm. Let's see.
Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved".
I say, "Pagans cannot be saved."
I fail to see any "interpretation" on my part.
Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved".
Bishop Fellay says, "[Pagans] can be saved".
Word for word the exact opposite. Who's "interpreting"?
Not only that but you have the audacity and hubris to claim that I am heretical for not saying that when the Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved", that Church really meant to dogmatically define the opposite, that "pagans can be saved". You are so blind that you do not even see this satanic inversion on your part. It's Lucifer's master-stroke against the Faith.
Not only does this turn EENS into a "meaningless" formula, it turns the Church's magisterium into a joke. So Catholics when it was defined came away thinking that pagans cannot be saved, but those simpleton fools ! Alas, they did not know that what the Church REALLY meant was that pagans COULD be saved. What utter dolts !
You need to pray about what you're doing. You are aligning yourselves with the enemies of the Faith and with Lucifer himself, all the while thinking that you are doing good ... just as Our Lord predicted.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
You quote and privately interpret them.
Hmmm. Let's see.
Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved".
I say, "Pagans cannot be saved."
I fail to see any "interpretation" on my part.
Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved".
Bishop Fellay says, "[Pagans] can be saved".
Word for word the exact opposite. Who's "interpreting"?
Not only that but you have the audacity and hubris to claim that I am heretical for not saying that when the Church teaches "pagans cannot be saved", that Church really meant to dogmatically define the opposite, that "pagans can be saved". You are so blind that you do not even see this satanic inversion on your part. It's Lucifer's master-stroke against the Faith.
Not only does this turn EENS into a "meaningless" formula, it turns the Church's magisterium into a joke. So Catholics when it was defined came away thinking that pagans cannot be saved, but those simpleton fools ! Alas, they did not know that what the Church REALLY meant was that pagans COULD be saved. What utter dolts !
You need to pray about what you're doing. You are aligning yourselves with the enemies of the Faith and with Lucifer himself, all the while thinking that you are doing good ... just as Our Lord predicted.
Ladislaus, consider the title of this thread, consider the 10 upthumbs the OP has - the modernist mentality has permeated down to their lex orandi - to the point they have not an ounce left in them to defend the necessity of the sacraments, but all their energy is spent openly preaching that no sacrament at all is necessary.
I'm afraid for what God will let happen to them if they persist in in preaching that no sacrament at all is necessary when it comes their turn to need the sacrament of the dying. One thing's for sure, their turn is coming and it'll be here before they realize it. I pray they cease preaching against the sacraments and wake up lest when their turn comes, they find that God left them with little more than the same implicit desire they've preached, when He could have sent them a priest.
-
Faith of the Fathers?
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 who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you
Both these quotes refer to explicit BoD
The proposition that theologians, authorities, Saints and Doctors (especially after Innocent II and III) teach pertains to Catholic doctrine is "there are souls that have been saved by baptism of desire".
This is the truth that you need to confess under pain of mortal sin.
Fr. Cekada also provides extensive docuмentation that at least after these medieval pronouncements of the Magisterium, all theologians ascribe to the proposition above a grade of certitude so high that it cannot be called into question without mortal sin.
these are non-infallible teachings
Pius XII answers this liberal excuse thus, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians"
These medieval teachings of the Holy See are authoritative and binding (those of Innocent II and Innocent III are included in Denzinger nos. 388 and 413), as the subsequent consensus among theologians also shows.
"unbaptized priest"
The reference to the "priest who died without the water of baptism" is thought by some to refer to someone who, by an unfortunate mistake, was baptized invalidly in the medieval Church. Such a person would not have then been able to receive any of the other sacraments. When the mistake was discovered, the question arose. But the Pope (St. Cyprian had earlier said God is able to provide for such persons) responded with the calm assurance that this person is not deprived of the fruits of the sacrament, showing the mind of the Church on this matter.
Innocent II is relying upon Augustine
Peter has spoken through Innocent II, approving the teaching that binds us Catholics. He clearly disagrees with you that St. Ambrose is "ambiguous" and even if St. Augustine changed his opinion (which some scholars deny), the teaching the Magisterium makes its own is what henceforth concerns us.
EXPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE
I already told you that you Feeneyites horribly confuse the issue, and this time I think it is deliberate on your part. The only matter discussed by the Doctors and theologians before Vatican II was not at all about baptism of desire but rather about explicit/implicit faith in Christ in those who receive the sacramental effect by this extraordinary means. That is the only topic that the Doctors and others considered an open question and that therefore can be discussed by Catholics, maybe I'll start a thread on that. I believe everything the Doctors believed on this subject, if you think otherwise, quote them against something I have said.
The Dimond link is so absurd it hardly merits a response - one example of their "reasoning" is like this: we know by our private judgment that Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching is incorrect in other respects (like they imagine on circuмcision and original sin), therefore we use that same private judgment to reject this teaching of his as well. Classic liberals.
-
You post your unauthorized explanations as support for your position. You have never quoted an authorized teacher, only disparaged or dismissed them.
Nonsense. I constantly quote from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils.
Ladi, you quote them and then explain how they teach us that the theologians and catechisms and the rest are all wrong. That's like a Protestant quoting scripture and maybe some ancient Church Fathers ... and explaining how the Catholic Church is wrong.
If you are right then you condemn yourself. You claim all the theologians got it wrong since the 1960s.
But you have no answer to this.
You keep saying this over and over like a broken record. We are only talking about Catholic theologians, not non-Catholic theologians!
Those that lost their Faith in the mid-1960's, lost their membership in the Church, and by that cannot be called Catholic theologians.
All of them?? So all the theologians before the 1960s were rock solid?
You don't learn from theologians as you claim..YOU decide whether they are orthodox or not.
The predominant theologians post V2 were censured pre-V2. The theologians are authorized by the Bishops, Alcuin, so a random theologian doesn't get to author a theology manual.
-
Faith of the Fathers?
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 who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you
He's talking about material heresy not Faith of Desire. You guys always selectively pull out the quotes from one Father or another that you happen to agree with and then beat everyone on the head with the "you must submit" but then conveniently ignore all the other quotes from the Fathers that you don't like. Again, as I have pointed out, you are not honest.
-
He's talking about material heresy not Faith of Desire.
In the past, you have denied that precisely what the quotation says is possible. And your erroneous thinking on the one is related to the other. Do you agree now that some baptized persons can retain faith and charity for a while after coming to the age of reason?
Again, as I have pointed out, you are not honest.
You have alleged it, but you have not shown it. I could perhaps say the same of you with much more justice. In charity, however, I will abstain. I haven't abused you or called you guys names. I just think your error is very serious, and therefore requires a proportionate response. Theologians unanimously teach (see below for the docuмentation) that to call into question that souls have been saved by baptism of desire and blood is a mortal sin and Pius IX binds us to such morally unanimous teaching of theologians.
The Dimonds may deceive you into thinking you have a right to question these doctrines, or that these are still open "theories" as they say, but they are wrong and your relying on them needlessly endangers your soul.
1 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2)
2 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf)
-
I already told you that you Feeneyites horribly confuse the issue, and this time I think it is deliberate on your part. The only matter discussed by the Doctors and theologians before Vatican II was not at all about baptism of desire but rather about explicit/implicit faith in Christ in those who receive the sacramental effect by this extraordinary means. That is the only topic that the Doctors and others considered an open question and that therefore can be discussed by Catholics, maybe I'll start a thread on that. I believe everything the Doctors believed on this subject, if you think otherwise, quote them against something I have said.
The Dimond link is so absurd it hardly merits a response - one example of their "reasoning" is like this: we know by our private judgment that Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching is incorrect in other respects (like they imagine on circuмcision and original sin), therefore we use that same private judgment to reject this teaching of his as well. Classic liberals.
Implicit desire being sufficient for salvation is a novelty and is a direct refutation of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". Novelties that contradict revealed Church dogma are heresies. After modernism infected the Church, even Catholic themselves, live under a policy of ambiguity, double talk, concealment, and subtle contradiction, in order to please the world and the non-Catholics.
Calling defenders of EENS as written, derogative terms such as feeneyites, dimondites, and the such; only shows utter ignorance of the authentic Catholic Faith, in the global, universal, historical sense. Also shows a lack of broader understanding on how the modernist heresy plagued the Church since way before 1949. Strict adherence to EENS is what the Church always taught and why She has always came out victorious after so many other heresies and persecutions. This goes far far far beyond Fr. Feeney.
-
Faith of the Fathers?
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 who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you
He's talking about material heresy not Faith of Desire. You guys always selectively pull out the quotes from one Father or another that you happen to agree with and then beat everyone on the head with the "you must submit" but then conveniently ignore all the other quotes from the Fathers that you don't like. Again, as I have pointed out, you are not honest.
And you can find no one who agrees with your opinion, which you post here with no source except yourself.
-
Faith of the Fathers?
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 who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you
He's talking about material heresy not Faith of Desire. You guys always selectively pull out the quotes from one Father or another that you happen to agree with and then beat everyone on the head with the "you must submit" but then conveniently ignore all the other quotes from the Fathers that you don't like. Again, as I have pointed out, you are not honest.
Not one Father, Saint , Doctor, Council taught salvation of those that have no explicit desire to be baptized , nor explicit desire to be Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinty. Plus:
http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm
WHO BELONGS TO THE MYSTICAL BODY?
For one thing, only those who explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity
DOGMA:
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.”
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
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."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)
All of which BODers vehemently deny!
-
I have not followed this thread closely but I'm supposing there is no one left that rejects the infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church on this forum now?
-
I have not followed this thread closely but I'm supposing there is no one left that rejects the infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church on this forum now?
There is not an infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church. BOD/B have always been theological opinions only, not revealed dogmas. There is Catholic infallible teaching on "Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus" that may be undermined by the theological speculation on BOD/B though.
-
I have not followed this thread closely but I'm supposing there is no one left that rejects the infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church on this forum now?
There is not an infallible doctrine of BOB/D of the Catholic Church. BOD/B have always been theological opinions only, not revealed dogmas. There is Catholic infallible teaching on "Extra Eclessiam Nulla Salus" that may be undermined by the theological speculation on BOD/B though.
Again ...
Bowler, Cantrella, stubborn, Ladislaus, etc. appear to deny that they must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accept that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. They are quite wrong on both counts.
There are three distinctions that need to be made here:
1. The objects of infallibility are twofold in nature, because of the purpose for which infallibility was granted to the Church. The infallibility of the Church exists to guarantee the truths revealed by God. Primarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our belief those revealed truths. Secondarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our acceptance those truths which are necessary for the security of the revealed truths. In this latter category are dogmatic facts, solemn condemnations of error, etc. When a theologian mentions the phrase, "pertains to Faith" it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they "relate to matters of Faith" - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.
2. The mode according to which we believe something varies also, because of what has been written above concerning the objects of the magisterium. Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as "certain", but one would not thereby be a heretic. You, bowler, and the other revolving door of characters seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case you cannot admit it while you are still under the influence of your self-made anti-BOD drug.
3. The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the "authentic" magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith. But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. "He who hears you, hears Me."
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
You learn from the authorities that YOU have approved or disapproved.
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
You learn from the authorities that YOU have approved or disapproved.
No, I learn from the authorities approved by the Church.
-
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Below quote applies to you too. You are missing the ELEPHANT in the room.
It does not phase you one iota that you deny the clear dogmatic declaration of Florence , the ancient Athanasian Creed, and that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council ever taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic
To All BODers,
The Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome and the local diocese. The Church has not declared BOD in any shape or form a dogma, nor has it declared heretics anyone or any saint, doctor or priest who taught teach John 3:15 as it is written, including all the Saint Benedict centers .
And yet, you believe that anyone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be Catholic, baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity!
Your belief is opposed to the clear DOGMA of Florence and the 1600 year old Athanasian creed.
It does not phase you one iota that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic!
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning. Moreover, not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in Christ and the real God, the Holy Trinity.
So you are in communion with heretics? Isn't "full communion" a post V2 term?
SJB once again misses the elephant in the room!
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608050906859768065&pid=1.7)
-
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Below quote applies to you too. You are missing the ELEPHANT in the room.
It does not phase you one iota that you deny the clear dogmatic declaration of Florence , the ancient Athanasian Creed, and that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council ever taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic
To All BODers,
The Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome and the local diocese. The Church has not declared BOD in any shape or form a dogma, nor has it declared heretics anyone or any saint, doctor or priest who taught teach John 3:15 as it is written, including all the Saint Benedict centers .
And yet, you believe that anyone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be Catholic, baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity!
Your belief is opposed to the clear DOGMA of Florence and the 1600 year old Athanasian creed.
It does not phase you one iota that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic!
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning. Moreover, not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in Christ and the real God, the Holy Trinity.
So you are in communion with heretics? Isn't "full communion" a post V2 term?
SJB once again misses the elephant in the room!
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608050906859768065&pid=1.7)
The elephant is you my friend and we see you quite clearly.
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Nice! :applause:
-
Lover of "Truth" sees no Elephant in the room:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/TEA7hg6LOuI/AAAAAAAAAYs/-EfyBppYPHE/s1600/head+in+sand.jpg)
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Below quote applies to you too. You are missing the ELEPHANT in the room.
It does not phase you one iota that you deny the clear dogmatic declaration of Florence , the ancient Athanasian Creed, and that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council ever taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic
To All BODers,
The Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome and the local diocese. The Church has not declared BOD in any shape or form a dogma, nor has it declared heretics anyone or any saint, doctor or priest who taught teach John 3:15 as it is written, including all the Saint Benedict centers .
And yet, you believe that anyone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be Catholic, baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity!
Your belief is opposed to the clear DOGMA of Florence and the 1600 year old Athanasian creed.
It does not phase you one iota that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic!
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning. Moreover, not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in Christ and the real God, the Holy Trinity.
So you are in communion with heretics? Isn't "full communion" a post V2 term?
SJB once again misses the elephant in the room!
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608050906859768065&pid=1.7)
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Nice! :applause:
Yeah, in the same way Protestants say that they rely on the authority of Sacred Scripture ... filtered through your own lenses. We're all in the same boat since we don't have a Pope around to settle the issue. In normal times, we would appeal our dispute to Rome. When the Holy Pope comes, he'll condemn your error(s) once and for all. You'll be in for quite a surprise.
-
You are correct. I do not believe the Father Cekada nonsense that we are bound to accept majority theological opinion as if it were part of the Magisterium. Otherwise, I'd have become Arian during the time of Arianism or would have accepted Vatican II.
What sources do you rely on in this assertion? When you are not able to produce any, will you admit that you make up theological principles from your own reasoning?
You reject Vatican II based on exactly the same reasoning.
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Nice! :applause:
Yeah, in the same way Protestants say that they rely on the authority of Sacred Scripture ... filtered through your own lenses. We're all in the same boat since we don't have a Pope around to settle the issue. In normal times, we would appeal our dispute to Rome. When the Holy Pope comes, he'll condemn your error(s) once and for all. You'll be in for quite a surprise.
You have a definite Protestant mentality, Ladi. You rely solely on first sources and your own explanations. Scripture is replaced with Denzinger or The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.
-
Lover of "Truth" sees no Elephant in the room:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sAacAghf6h0/TEA7hg6LOuI/AAAAAAAAAYs/-EfyBppYPHE/s1600/head+in+sand.jpg)
I learn from the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists. I distrust myself completely. That is the difference between you and I.
Below quote applies to you too. You are missing the ELEPHANT in the room.
It does not phase you one iota that you deny the clear dogmatic declaration of Florence , the ancient Athanasian Creed, and that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council ever taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic
To All BODers,
The Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome and the local diocese. The Church has not declared BOD in any shape or form a dogma, nor has it declared heretics anyone or any saint, doctor or priest who taught teach John 3:15 as it is written, including all the Saint Benedict centers .
And yet, you believe that anyone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be Catholic, baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity!
Your belief is opposed to the clear DOGMA of Florence and the 1600 year old Athanasian creed.
It does not phase you one iota that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic!
DOGMA:
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.”
If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning. Moreover, not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in Christ and the real God, the Holy Trinity.
So you are in communion with heretics? Isn't "full communion" a post V2 term?
SJB once again misses the elephant in the room!
(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608050906859768065&pid=1.7)
I do see the elephant in the room. There are two actually. One is that Bergolio is an apostate heretic than cannot be Pope and the other is Bowler who keeps posting teaching contrary to the Catholic faith on this forum.
-
If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified, impossible to observe; let him be anathema (Canon18)
It follows that God will ensure that the justified of the New Law gets baptized, as Christ commanded. Baptism cannot be impossible to receive for the justified, since Our Lord has both revealed and commanded Baptism as necessary for eternal salvation. It is a defined dogma of Faith and nothing that God commands is impossible to fulfill. A worthy soul who is properly disposed, will never find it impossible to receive Baptism.
I am not a theologian, nor have I thought much about Baptism of Desire. As a convert, I have always believed if someone actually desires to become Catholic, then God will make that happen eventually. However, I never really questioned or considered that BOD, as discussed here might not be a doctrine of the Church. I never investigated it. Over the years though it seemed that the people who hold this view are people who have lost babies to miscarriage or people who have loved ones that learned about Catholicism but never really made that step for Baptism. It's just something I never thought about.
At least not until this year. This year my mother, who was in a coma for two weeks (which can be completely verified by 3 doctors), my mother who was on hospice and taken off all life support and nutrition as per her written wishes, my mother who was standing on the line between life and death, my mother who until the very last day before her stroke DENIED that she needed to be Catholic or baptized, my mother who never expressed one single desire to be anything other than she was, WOKE UP and asked, in her own words, for Baptism by my priest whom she called by name.
Today, my mother is alive but has no idea cognitively where she is, what day it is, or who many of my children are. She is incapable of making a single cognitive decision nor has any understanding of basic skills other than to wipe her nose when it is running.
For the last 10 years my mother has lived with me. In the last 5, I have been a traditional Catholic and homeschooled my children. I have taught her the Catholic faith myself. We taught her the rosary. We have prayed for her. And in the two weeks that she was in a coma, I sat every single day and prayed in her ear, like my priest suggested I do. I told her about everything. I prayed rosaries. I pleaded with the Blessed Virgin and every saint I could think of to bring my mother to the feet of Our Lord. I could not imagine her dying without Baptism! I pleaded with Christ, if there was ever such as thing as Baptism of Desire, to give that Desire to my Mother, because all my efforts in 10 years were for naught.
And somehow, through a greatest miracle, the Lord heard my prayer. In those days between life and death, He showed my mother everything. He gave her the desire to be Baptized. He woke her up and put the words in her mouth right down the name of my priest.
I will say to you, my mother had the look of fear on her face. She was petrified when she woke up and immediately after her baptism, she was at peace. Today, as crazy as she is, she is still at peace.
Nothing is impossible with God. I believe, even more so now, that if a person desires to be baptized, to be Catholic, then God will provide.
In my opinion, we should be praying for people to be instructed in the Catholic faith and be Baptized. Without our prayers, I believe many are being lost simply because we don't really believe that Baptism is truly necessary.
Just my two cents, and certainly not a theological opinion or even one I have researched to a great extent. But I do believe God showed me what He wanted me to know.
I don't know if this adds anything to this discussion, but for me it clarified what I was questioning. Personally, I do not believe that simply "desiring" Baptism in one's heart is enough. I do believe that Baptism by water is a requirement and that, if one desires it above all things for either fear of Hell (as in my mother's case) or love of God, then God will provide.
So if I must accept Baptism of Desire, show me this declaration and I will accept it. Otherwise, I remain convinced in my above stated opinion.
-
Nothing is impossible with God. I believe, even more so now, that if a person desires to be baptized, to be Catholic, then God will provide.
Absolutely, CathMom. There are cases of saints who raised people back to life in order to baptize them. Baptism of Desire is predicated on this idea that in some cases it might be impossible for God to bring Baptism to His elect. Nothing could be more absurd (even borderline heretical). St. Augustine condemned that idea when he rejected the notion of Baptism of Desire.
Don't let anyone tell you that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire; it did not.
-
Nothing is impossible with God. I believe, even more so now, that if a person desires to be baptized, to be Catholic, then God will provide.
Absolutely, CathMom. There are cases of saints who raised people back to life in order to baptize them. Baptism of Desire is predicated on this idea that in some cases it might be impossible for God to bring Baptism to His elect. Nothing could be more absurd (even borderline heretical). St. Augustine condemned that idea when he rejected the notion of Baptism of Desire.
Don't let anyone tell you that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire; it did not.
Baptism of Desire is predicated on this idea that in some cases it might be impossible for God to bring Baptism to His elect.
[/b]
The assertion above is absurd. That would like be saying the belief in earthquakes is based on the idea that it is impossible for God to prevent them. It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church and is de fide according to Saint Alphonsus De Liguori. It is based on the undeniable fact that God does not condemn a soul to eternal Hell-fire through no fault of his own. It is based upon the fact that it is God who cleanses the soul from Original sin not the water. The Council of Trent taught one can be justified by Baptism of desire and Father Feeney knew this, which is why he came up with the novelty that one can be justified but still not obtain the Beatific Vision unless he be baptized with water.
-
It is based on the undeniable fact that God does not condemn a soul to eternal Hell-fire through no fault of his own.
If understood in the sense that you mean it, LoT, that's a Pelagian premise. Nevertheless, all of the sensible suffering in hell is certainly due to personal sin. Not, however, the loss of salvation itself. We can (and perhaps should) certainly believe that God will bring salvation to any adult who has not committed personal sin, but that doesn't mean God will not bring salvation to such people via Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism.
It is based upon the fact that it is God who cleanses the soul from Original sin not the water.
That statement completely undermines the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism taught by Trent. Of course God cleanses, but God has established the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessary instrumental cause, necessary by a necessity of means.
The Council of Trent taught one can be justified by Baptism of desire ...
It did no such thing; my arguments to the effect that Trent did NOT teach BoD have NEVER been addressed. They are really rock solid; why is why you can't address them.
All of the underlying arguments for BoD are decidedly un Catholic (I'm not talking about citations from authority that allegedly teach BoD but about the theological "reasoning" behind it).
It's some admixture of ...
1) it would not be fair for God to not save someone who has not received Baptism through not fault of their own (What about unbaptized infants? Why can't God just bring such a one to Baptism? Is that not "possible" for God?)
2) God cannot be bound by the Sacraments. (Yet God can be bound by "impossibility"? God cannot BE bound but God certainly can BIND. He has established how were are to be saved, and it's not for us to second-guess that. We need only understand what He has revealed to us with regard to the requirements for salvation. This argument denies Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.).
-
It is based on the undeniable fact that God does not condemn a soul to eternal Hell-fire through no fault of his own.
If understood in the sense that you mean it, LoT, that's a Pelagian premise. Nevertheless, all of the sensible suffering in hell is certainly due to personal sin. Not, however, the loss of salvation itself. We can (and perhaps should) certainly believe that God will bring salvation to any adult who has not committed personal sin, but that doesn't mean God will not bring salvation to such people via Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism.
It is based upon the fact that it is God who cleanses the soul from Original sin not the water.
That statement completely undermines the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism taught by Trent. Of course God cleanses, but God has established the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessary instrumental cause, necessary by a necessity of means.
The Council of Trent taught one can be justified by Baptism of desire ...
It did no such thing; my arguments to the effect that Trent did NOT teach BoD have NEVER been addressed. They are really rock solid; why is why you can't address them.
All of the underlying arguments for BoD are decidedly un Catholic (I'm not talking about citations from authority that allegedly teach BoD but about the theological "reasoning" behind it).
It's some admixture of ...
1) it would not be fair for God to not save someone who has not received Baptism through not fault of their own (What about unbaptized infants? Why can't God just bring such a one to Baptism? Is that not "possible" for God?)
2) God cannot be bound by the Sacraments. (Yet God can be bound by "impossibility"? God cannot BE bound but God certainly can BIND. He has established how were are to be saved, and it's not for us to second-guess that. We need only understand what He has revealed to us with regard to the requirements for salvation. This argument denies Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.).
My statement does not completely undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. When one is baptized with water it is God Who cleanses the soul of Original Sin. Do you affirm or deny this?
-
It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church ...
No it's not. You can find more Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than those who accept it. In fact, you can find only one Church Father who clearly teaches it, St. Augustine, and St. Augustine CLEARLY indicates with his language that it's an exercise in speculative theology and then later VERY FORCEFULLY retracts BoD and makes some of the strongest Anti-BOD statements that can be found in any of the Church Fathers.
-
Further, do you affirm or deny that Sacramental Baptism in necessary by a necessity of precept and by a necessity of means but not by intrinsic necessity?
-
It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church ...
No it's not. You can find more Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than those who accept it. In fact, you can find only one Church Father who clearly teaches it, St. Augustine, and St. Augustine CLEARLY indicates with his language that it's an exercise in speculative theology and then later VERY FORCEFULLY retracts BoD and makes some of the strongest Anti-BOD statements that can be found in any of the Church Fathers.
I know you to be sincere my friend but on this issue you are surely misguided. Or do you believe the encyclicals by Pius XI and XII that touched on the issue were not authoritative and infallible?
-
My statement does not completely undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. When one is baptized with water it is God Who cleanses the soul of Original Sin. Do you affirm or deny this?
If you read my post above, I already explicitly affirm this. You're using this, however, to argue that the Sacrament of Baptism isn't a necessary INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE BY WHICH God does the cleansing, i.e. that God cleanses directly, without the Sacrament of Baptism as an intermediary ... which is denying Trent's teaching on the NECESSITY of Baptism. Your previous argument has been to characterize the necessity as a necessity of precept, but that flies in the face of all the theologians who teach about that subject.
-
It is based on the undeniable fact that God does not condemn a soul to eternal Hell-fire through no fault of his own.
If understood in the sense that you mean it, LoT, that's a Pelagian premise. Nevertheless, all of the sensible suffering in hell is certainly due to personal sin. Not, however, the loss of salvation itself. We can (and perhaps should) certainly believe that God will bring salvation to any adult who has not committed personal sin, but that doesn't mean God will not bring salvation to such people via Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism.
It is based upon the fact that it is God who cleanses the soul from Original sin not the water.
That statement completely undermines the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism taught by Trent. Of course God cleanses, but God has established the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessary instrumental cause, necessary by a necessity of means.
The Council of Trent taught one can be justified by Baptism of desire ...
It did no such thing; my arguments to the effect that Trent did NOT teach BoD have NEVER been addressed. They are really rock solid; why is why you can't address them.
All of the underlying arguments for BoD are decidedly un Catholic (I'm not talking about citations from authority that allegedly teach BoD but about the theological "reasoning" behind it).
It's some admixture of ...
1) it would not be fair for God to not save someone who has not received Baptism through not fault of their own (What about unbaptized infants? Why can't God just bring such a one to Baptism? Is that not "possible" for God?)
2) God cannot be bound by the Sacraments. (Yet God can be bound by "impossibility"? God cannot BE bound but God certainly can BIND. He has established how were are to be saved, and it's not for us to second-guess that. We need only understand what He has revealed to us with regard to the requirements for salvation. This argument denies Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.).
Can you at least admit that BOD is not predicated on the idea that it is impossible for God to work a miracle to baptize someone with water? If not can you supply the source that teaches the contrary?
-
It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church ...
No it's not. You can find more Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than those who accept it. In fact, you can find only one Church Father who clearly teaches it, St. Augustine, and St. Augustine CLEARLY indicates with his language that it's an exercise in speculative theology and then later VERY FORCEFULLY retracts BoD and makes some of the strongest Anti-BOD statements that can be found in any of the Church Fathers.
I know you to be sincere my friend but on this issue you are surely misguided. Or do you believe the encyclicals by Pius XI and XII that touched on the issue were not authoritative and infallible?
I am not aware of any encyclicals of either Pius XI or Pius XII that teach BoD. There was of course Suprema Haec and I question both its authenticity and its authority.
I have studied this subject for years. I used to believe in BoD for catechumens because I thought that the Church Fathers taught it and because I thought that Trent taught it. But in actually going back and doing the research, I find that this is simply not the case. If Trent taught it, then obviously it's de fide, and I read Trent at a time when I believed in BoD for catechumens. I read the entire treatise on justification in Latin and found ... to my surprise, actually ... that Trent was clearly not intending to teach BoD.
This will be the one of the first issues that will need to be authoritatively settled by the Church when the smoke of the V2 apostasy clears.
-
My statement does not completely undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. When one is baptized with water it is God Who cleanses the soul of Original Sin. Do you affirm or deny this?
If you read my post above, I already explicitly affirm this. You're using this, however, to argue that the Sacrament of Baptism isn't a necessary INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE BY WHICH God does the cleansing, i.e. that God cleanses directly, without the Sacrament of Baptism as an intermediary ... which is denying Trent's teaching on the NECESSITY of Baptism. Your previous argument has been to characterize the necessity as a necessity of precept, but that flies in the face of all the theologians who teach about that subject.
The Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of God cleansing the soul of Original Sin but it admits of exceptions.
Show me where Trent teaches the opposite of what it seems to teach. Even Father Feeney would disagree with you. Are you aware that he admitted desire for the sacrament can justify a person based upon his reading of Trent. He read it in Latin and understood what it said. This is why most "Feeneyites" disagree with him. They do not believe "baptism of desire" does anything.
-
Can you at least admit that BOD is not predicated on the idea that it is impossible for God to work a miracle to baptize someone with water? If not can you supply the source that teaches the contrary?
But that's where the idea was originally hatched. BoB was first developed because people saw some catechumens getting martyred, whereas there were veritable scuмbuckets who got baptized on their deathbeds after living lives of sin. Then BoD came along for the same reasons. This was admitted even by St. Augustine, that the idea was founded upon people questioning whether this was "fair". There's no evidence that this was revealed or you would have all the Church Fathers unanimously teaching it. But against St. Augustine you can find about 4 or 5 Fathers who very forcefully reject BoD (some accept BoB but then reject BoD). St. Robert Bellarmine admits that the Church Fathers were divided on this issue.
That's why I question your statement that BoD has been the "constant teaching of the Church"; there's just no actual evidence for that.
There are two ways in which something can be said to be revealed.
1) directly revealed, as indicated by a unanimous consent of the Church Fathers (no such evidence exists)
2) implicitly and necessarily derived from other revealed dogmas (I have seen no syllogism which derives BoD from other revealed dogmas)
Consequently, I see no evidence for this to be de fide. I see it as little more than a piece of speculative theology, based on various emotional reasons (as I outlined above), that the Church has allowed and tolerated and even endorsed (but never definitely taught or defined).
Yet I see also that BoD was extended gradually beyond catechumens to various heretics and schismatics, and then even to infidels and pagans. And it's this idea which has been exploited to lead to the modern V2 ecclesiology and to religious indifferentism.
-
Show me where Trent teaches the opposite of what it seems to teach.
I've posted my explanation for why Trent doesn't teach BoD probably about a dozen times on the myriad different threads. I don't feel like typing out the whole thing again, so I'll look it up and perhaps we could start a separate thread dedicated to that question.
-
This will be the one of the first issues that will need to be authoritatively settled by the Church when the smoke of the V2 apostasy clears.
Upon re examination of the so called Baptism of Desire and its devastating effects on the EENS salutary dogma, a Papal solemn condemnation of it once and for all, even for cathechumens, will serve the purpose.
The denial of EENS via BOD ( or better said last minute Act of Contrition for an unbaptized person) has been the main devilish weapon Modernism has brought against the Faith. We should have listened to Fr. Feeney.
-
Can you at least admit that BOD is not predicated on the idea that it is impossible for God to work a miracle to baptize someone with water? If not can you supply the source that teaches the contrary?
But that's where the idea was originally hatched. BoB was first developed because people saw some catechumens getting martyred, whereas there were veritable scuмbuckets who got baptized on their deathbeds after living lives of sin. Then BoD came along for the same reasons. This was admitted even by St. Augustine, that the idea was founded upon people questioning whether this was "fair". There's no evidence that this was revealed or you would have all the Church Fathers unanimously teaching it. But against St. Augustine you can find about 4 or 5 Fathers who very forcefully reject BoD (some accept BoB but then reject BoD). St. Robert Bellarmine admits that the Church Fathers were divided on this issue.
That's why I question your statement that BoD has been the "constant teaching of the Church"; there's just no actual evidence for that.
There are two ways in which something can be said to be revealed.
1) directly revealed, as indicated by a unanimous consent of the Church Fathers (no such evidence exists)
2) implicitly and necessarily derived from other revealed dogmas (I have seen no syllogism which derives BoD from other revealed dogmas)
Consequently, I see no evidence for this to be de fide. I see it as little more than a piece of speculative theology, based on various emotional reasons (as I outlined above), that the Church has allowed and tolerated and even endorsed (but never definitely taught or defined).
Yet I see also that BoD was extended gradually beyond catechumens to various heretics and schismatics, and then even to infidels and pagans. And it's this idea which has been exploited to lead to the modern V2 ecclesiology and to religious indifferentism.
Why would Saint Alphonsus claim it de fide in a very serious work of his and not be corrected for it. He based this, at least in part, on Trent. You will admit that he understood the Latin and had the qualifications to make basic distinctions between norms and absolutes.
You are aware of the difference between "necessity of means" and "intrinsic necessity" are you not?
If one were to use your own logic against you and say those who deny BOD predicate their denial on the idea that it is impossible for God to cleanse the soul from Original Sin unless water is involved?
-
Show me where Trent teaches the opposite of what it seems to teach.
I've posted my explanation for why Trent doesn't teach BoD probably about a dozen times on the myriad different threads. I don't feel like typing out the whole thing again, so I'll look it up and perhaps we could start a separate thread dedicated to that question.
I'm sorry Ladislaus. I have gained alot more respect for you lately. In the past I would probably skip over your posts on the issue. In the same vein I have posted numerous writings from esteemed theologians, mainly Monsignor Fenton and all those he uses to support Church teaching on the issue and wonder if you have read them, or not understood them, or simply dismissed them as not true because you do not believe they can stand up against the evidence you believe you have garnered.
-
Here is a link that might be of interest:
http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=159&sid=eb421fa4cf10f541cae7fb743b5807fa
-
I have gained a lot more respect for you lately.
Likewise. It's better to focus on the things about which we agree sometimes, isn't it?
-
I have gained a lot more respect for you lately.
Likewise. It's better to focus on the things about which we agree sometimes, isn't it?
I would say so. It is good to sharpen your antlers but not productive when both sides are 100% sure they are correct, both teaching, neither learning.
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.
Can you?
So if Baptism of Desire has never been a de fide dogma, it automatically follows that St Alphonsus held a mistaken fallible opinion. We learn this because there is a contradiction between the statement said above and the infallible teachings of the Church on Baptism. There is only ONE Baptism for the remission of Sin, and that of water and of the word.
Please ban this pesky and ignorant poster, along with the likes of "andysloan" and Stubborn.
They are just trolls.
The ignorance of Dimondite Feeneyites is just painful to behold.
"Show me where it has been INFALLIBLY defined".
"Show me where it has been DOGMATICALLY DECLARED".
"Infallible" this.
"Infallible" that.
Pack of ignorants!
-
Nothing is impossible with God. I believe, even more so now, that if a person desires to be baptized, to be Catholic, then God will provide.
.......So if I must accept Baptism of Desire, show me this declaration and I will accept it. Otherwise, I remain convinced in my above stated opinion.
Beautiful CathMomof7, thank you very much for sharing. Your post alone is sufficient proof that those who sincerely desire the sacrament will indeed receive the sacrament - God will provide - always.
Your "two cents" sums up the Doctrine of God's Divine Providence in just a paragraph or two. This is the doctrine that gets explicitly rejected by those who preach salvation via no sacrament at all, which they call "a BOD".
I just skimmed the rest of this thread and as per usual, not one of the NSAAers even acknowledged your awesome post, rather, one of the chief sacrament despisers (who has the gall to call himself "Lover of Truth"), continues to defend the heresy that there is no need for the sacraments at all, and that the Church teaches this heresy.
You (and certainly your dear mother) have received a very great blessing! Deo Gratias!
There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you. - Bread of Life by Fr. Feeney
-
Just a mistaken theological opinion...
Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?
No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.
Can you?
So if Baptism of Desire has never been a de fide dogma, it automatically follows that St Alphonsus held a mistaken fallible opinion. We learn this because there is a contradiction between the statement said above and the infallible teachings of the Church on Baptism. There is only ONE Baptism for the remission of Sin, and that of water and of the word.
Please ban this pesky and ignorant poster, along with the likes of "andysloan" and Stubborn.
They are just trolls.
The ignorance of Dimondite Feeneyites is just painful to behold.
"Show me where it has been INFALLIBLY defined".
"Show me where it has been DOGMATICALLY DECLARED".
"Infallible" this.
"Infallible" that.
Pack of ignorants!
Cathedra, why do you despise the necessity of the sacraments for salvation?
-
I would be more interested in ordination by desire to be banned.
How many men in the traditionalist movement found an old traditional bishop to thump them on the head and wave his magic wand?
-
I would be more interested in ordination by desire to be banned.
How many men in the traditionalist movement found an old traditional bishop to thump them on the head and wave his magic wand?
Baptism and Penance pertain to salvation whereas ordination does not. This is why the Church infallibly teaches that there is a Baptism of Desire and Perfect Contrition, like her Founder she does not insist upon the impossible.
On the other hand a man can be saved whether he be a Priest or not. Therefore, because it does not directly pertain to where one will spend one's eternity, the desire does not have the effect of the Sacrament.
-
she does not insist upon the impossible
There is NOTHING that is impossible for God. You're just proving that BoD is predicated upon this idea that God in some cases cannot bring His elect to Baptism. That's essentially heretical (cf. Sacred Scripture -- "With God all things are possible.") If someone were to be saved by BoD, it would only be because God directly willed for that person to be saved by BoD rather than to receive Sacramental Baptism. But why would God ever will for a person to be saved by BoD? Answer: He wouldn't. If such a one did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, it was because God did not will for that person to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. If God willed that someone should receive Baptism, then he WILL receive 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 predestined 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.
-
For some, the word of Christ is simply not enough for them to believe.
-
Nothing is impossible with God, including cleansing the soul of Original Sin without water.
Why hasn't anyone responded to the link I provided? Here is what it contained:
New post Baptism of Desire Defended
I thought it might be best to start a new thread to focus on this subject. I am confident that the correct teaching of the Church can be made clear and objections can be met.
Feeneyites usually start with Trent, so let us start there.
We understand Trent according to the definitions of Aquinas.
Trent should be understood with reference to the teaching of Aquinas, especially his Summa Theologica. The Church has told us this.
"The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." Code of Canon Law, 1366, 2.
Pius X: "The reason is that the capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as THE FOUNDATIONS upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately FAIL TO PERCEIVE SO MUCH AS THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN WHICH THE DOGMAS OF DIVINE REVELATION ARE PROPOSED BY THE MAGISTRACY OF THE CHURCH." (Doctoris Angelici)
So, we cannot hope to understand the dogmas of the Church without appreciating the Scholastic definitions of Aquinas. In this case, we need to understand what Aquinas means when he says that a sacrament is "necessary for salvation".
The necessity of the sacraments.
When Trent tells us that baptism is "necessary for salvation", Aquinas explains that it is necessary "either actually or in desire".
"Objection: the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. Reply: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS SAID TO BE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION IN SO FAR AS THERE CAN BE NO SALVATION FOR MAN UNLESS HE AT LEAST HAVE IT IN DESIRE WHICH, WITH GOD, COUNTS FOR THE DEED." (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2)
That is, a sacrament that is "necessary for salvation" may be received unto salvation "actually" or "in desire".
"Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS DESIRE, he does not RECEIVE GRACE. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to PENANCE likewise." (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)
Sacramental necessity at Trent.
We can see that is what Trent meant because it used the same phrase "necessary for salvation" about the sacrament of penance too -- and we all admit that one can be saved by desiring to confess if one has perfect contrition and cannot actually confess.
"And this SACRAMENT OF PENANCE is, for those who have fallen after baptism, NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, AS BAPTISM ITSELF IS for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Denz. 895)
Although it is "necessary", it may be received in desire as well as "actually".
"Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT,-which is, together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism." (Denz 807)
"The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein." (Denz. 898)
And so Aquinas.
"Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS DESIRE, he does not RECEIVE GRACE. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to PENANCE likewise." (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)
Trent told us that baptism too, may be received in "desire".
"And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Denz. 796)
That is usually translated as "baptism or its desire", though either translation is literal and makes the point.
And Trent told us that a third sacrament may be received in desire, even the eucharist.
"Now as to the use of this holy SACRAMENT [of the Eucharist], the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished THREE "WAYS OF RECEIVING IT. For they have taught that some receive it SACRAMENTALLY ONLY, to wit sinners; OTHERS SPIRITUALLY ONLY, those to wit who EATING IN DESIRE [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both SACRAMENTALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment." (Denz. 881)
Aquinas likewise.
"In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, WHILE DESIRING TO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT; and this is NOT MERELY TO EAT CHRIST SPIRITUALLY, BUT LIKEWISE TO EAT THIS SACRAMENT." (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2)
Implicit desire.
We can see the concept of implicit desire at Trent too.
Aquinas tells us that baptism can be received "in desire" when the desire is "implicit".
"Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has BAPTISM IN DESIRE, EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY; and yet when he actually receives baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and THEIR DESIRE FOR BAPTISM, IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues." (Summa Theologica 3, 69, 4)
He gave the definition of "implicit" as when something is "contained" in something else.
"Properly speaking, that is called IMPLICIT in which many things are CONTAINED AS IN ONE, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself." (Of Truth 14, 11)
We can see Trent employ this definition of implicit desire with reference to confession.
"The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT WHICH IS INCLUDED THEREIN." (Denz. 898)
Moreover, when Trent said that we can be justified by baptism "or the desire thereof" (aut ejus voto) it used a phrase used by Aquinas to indicate that infants may receive the eucharist unto salvation through the desire of the Church.
"This sacrament [of the Eucharist] has, of itself, the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some DESIRE THEREOF [ipsius voto]; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult, OR FROM THE CHURCH'S DESIRE IN THE CASE OF CHILDREN." (Summa Theologica III, 79, 1)
Necessity of sacramental matter.
Neither is it contrary to this doctrine that Trent said that water is "necessary" for baptism. It may yet be received in desire.
We may see this from that Trent said that the confession of sins individually is "necessary" for penance, yet, as we have seen, it may be received in desire as well as in act.
"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 LAW NECESSARY for all who have fallen after baptism; because that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins. For it is manifest, that PRIESTS COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED THIS JUDGMENT without knowledge of the cause; neither indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments, if the said faithful should have declared their sins in general only, and not rather SPECIFICALLY, AND ONE BY ONE. Whence it is gathered that ALL MORTAL SINS, of which, after a diligent examination of themselves, they are conscious, MUST be by penitents enumerated in confession. [...] But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is NECESSARY TO SEEK ALSO FOR THE PARDON OF THEM ALL from God, with an open and humble confession. Wherefore, while the faithful of Christ are careful to confess all the sins which occur to their memory, they without doubt lay them all bare before the mercy of God to be pardoned." (Denz. 899)
Conclusion.
So, by reading Trent carefully, and especially with reference to the Summa, we can see that although baptism is "necessary for salvation", that is not to say that it cannot be received "in desire" unto salvation, even "implicitly" or through the desire of the Church. Indeed, we all agree that penance can be received unto salvation through desire though it is "necessary for salvation". Aquinas tells us that is true of baptism too and it is clearly the drift of Trent. The eucharist is another example.
-
For some, the word of Christ is simply not enough for them to believe.
People like Saint Alphonsus, Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, etc. etc. etc. They just don't get it. But you do. Very well. Carry on. :cheers:
-
Nothing is impossible with God, including cleansing the soul of Original Sin without water.
Correct. But it was YOU who claimed just a couple posts earlier there it might be impossible for God to bring Sacramental Baptism to anyone whom He willed to receive it.
Yes, God could theoretically do WHATEVER He wants. That's not at issue here. What's at issue is whether, according to what He has revealed He EVER wills for anyone to be saved by BoD rather than by the Sacrament of Baptism.
In stating that God saves people without water, you are denying the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation as taught by the Council of Trent. Even BoDers post Trent claim (since they had to so as not to reject Trent) that the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of salvation even in BoD, since in BoD the Sacrament of Baptism is received. So to say that God saves "WITHOUT" the Sacrament of Baptism is to deny Trent's teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
-
Is it or is it not true, LoT, that in cases of BoD (conceding for a moment that this exists) God wills that the person should not receive the Sacrament of Baptism but that the person should be saved via BoD.
Why would God will that someone should be saved via BoD?
... now that we've dispensed with this "impossibility" nonsense.
-
Nothing is impossible with God, including cleansing the soul of Original Sin without water.
Correct. But it was YOU who claimed just a couple posts earlier there it might be impossible for God to bring Sacramental Baptism to anyone whom He willed to receive it.
Yes, God could theoretically do WHATEVER He wants. That's not at issue here. What's at issue is whether, according to what He has revealed He EVER wills for anyone to be saved by BoD rather than by the Sacrament of Baptism.
In stating that God saves people without water, you are denying the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation as taught by the Council of Trent. Even BoDers post Trent claim (since they had to so as not to reject Trent) that the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of salvation even in BoD, since in BoD the Sacrament of Baptism is received. So to say that God saves "WITHOUT" the Sacrament of Baptism is to deny Trent's teaching on the necessity of Baptism.
I don't claim it impossible which is why I responded to assertion that we base our premise upon the assumption that it is impossible for God to miraculously baptize with water say after raising them from the dead or bringing a spring out of the ground or to spend 40 days after the Resurrection baptizing souls in Limbo as some claim, by saying such a claim is as silly as asserting that those who believe in earthquakes base their assumption on the idea that God cannot prevent them.
It is not about what God can or cannot do. He can create the human race without our help. It is what he does do and allow.
-
It is not about what God can or cannot do. He can create the human race without our help. It is what he does do and allow.
Of course, anything is possible with God, and He can save whoever he wishes but that is not a valid argument because we have learned, through Divine revelation, that He binds himself into certain patterns, that there is a particular way He wants to be glorified and that there is a chosen path of human salvation.
Why then Christ Himself revealed a New Law of Salvation?
The Word Incarnated established His Church in a certain, particular way, almost mathematical way. Here it is where the need of the Church and her Sacraments come in.
Even in the Old Testament, God speaks through Ezechiel about the New Covenant required for salvation. We can see that in the Book of Ezechiel, God reveals the promise of baptism. God says, “And I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.” They will enter the New Covenant through Baptism, their priests will offer sacrifice, and they will be governed by one shepherd (34:23).
“I will pour upon you clean water” (Ezech. 36:25). “And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you” (Ezech. 36:26). “He hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature”
What we Catholics must be may be concerned about is following these designs already established and revealed by God without questioning His justice. Our Lord's teaching is very definitive about Baptism. Water Baptism is absolutely necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven. No exceptions. To teach otherwise, is to teach error and errors can and have been exploited always by the enemies of the Faith.
God does not command impossibilities. Those who think that some unforeseen circuмstances could prevent one from receiving God's gift of Baptism mistakenly presume that God has commanded the impossible and has not fulfill His promise to the elect and to those souls who sincerely seek and ask.
-
https://dts.fws.gov/dts/output/E6E0275EE46502E5F57542AA43C737F8/Status_of_Open_Records.pdf
Thanks for the scripture verse. If only the following could have been made aware of it. Not sure how they missed. CI bloggers to the rescue I guess:
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“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.”
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
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 (Denzinger 413).
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“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.’”
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
“Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
“Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
“Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment...”
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
“Baptism of Desire... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...”
“These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
“...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith....”
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum 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).
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II, 1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
>From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II), Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
-
I don't claim it impossible ...
from earlier
Baptism and Penance pertain to salvation whereas ordination does not. This is why the Church infallibly teaches that there is a Baptism of Desire and Perfect Contrition, like her Founder she does not insist upon the impossible.
-
Is it or is it not true, LoT, that in cases of BoD (conceding for a moment that this exists) God wills that the person should not receive the Sacrament of Baptism but that the person should be saved via BoD.
Why would God will that someone should be saved via BoD?
... now that we've dispensed with this "impossibility" nonsense.
Please answer this. We needn't digress into spamming articles which dredge up every single argument regarding BoD. Let's stick to the matter at hand.
-
I don't claim it impossible ...
from earlier
Baptism and Penance pertain to salvation whereas ordination does not. This is why the Church infallibly teaches that there is a Baptism of Desire and Perfect Contrition, like her Founder she does not insist upon the impossible.
She does not insist that a person get baptized when it is impossible for that person to do so. Nor for one to go to Confession when it is impossible for them to do so. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
Is it or is it not true, LoT, that in cases of BoD (conceding for a moment that this exists) God wills that the person should not receive the Sacrament of Baptism but that the person should be saved via BoD.
Why would God will that someone should be saved via BoD?
... now that we've dispensed with this "impossibility" nonsense.
Please answer this. We needn't digress into spamming articles which dredge up every single argument regarding BoD. Let's stick to the matter at hand.
Do you agree that God has a positive will and a permissive will (a will that allows that which He does not directly intend)? I probably could have worded that better but I believe you will understand the question.
For instance God does not will abortion but allows it.
-
Is it or is it not true, LoT, that in cases of BoD (conceding for a moment that this exists) God wills that the person should not receive the Sacrament of Baptism but that the person should be saved via BoD.
Why would God will that someone should be saved via BoD?
... now that we've dispensed with this "impossibility" nonsense.
Please answer this. We needn't digress into spamming articles which dredge up every single argument regarding BoD. Let's stick to the matter at hand.
Do you agree that God has a positive will and a permissive will (a will that allows that which He does not directly intend)? I probably could have worded that better but I believe you will understand the question.
For instance God does not will abortion but allows it.
Bottom line He wills all be saved and does not damn anyone on a technicality. Those who are aware that sacramental baptism is necessary and purposely avoid it are obviously damned. Those who are not inculpably ignorant that the Catholic Church is the only Church in which one can be saved but refuse to enter or take the steps necessary for entering are damned.
-
She does not insist that a person get baptized when it is impossible for that person to do so.
You continue to treat Baptism as necessary by necessity of precept, despite your denials, and you continue to claim that Baptism could be impossible for anyone whom God has chosen to be among His elect, despite your denials.
-
Do you agree that God has a positive will and a permissive will (a will that allows that which He does not directly intend)? I probably could have worded that better but I believe you will understand the question.
For instance God does not will abortion but allows it.
Please answer my question first.
Permissive will refers to evils not directly willed by God. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. God CAN give the Sacrament of Baptism to anyone He's chosen to save. If He CAN do so, then it follows that if he does NOT do so, it's because He did not WILL it.
You continue to talk about how God cannot be constrained by the Sacraments and yet out of the other side of your mouth continue to claim that God can be constrained by impossibility.
Why would God WILL that someone be saved by Baptism of Desire?
-
She does not insist that a person get baptized when it is impossible for that person to do so.
You continue to treat Baptism as necessary by necessity of precept, despite your denials, and you continue to claim that Baptism could be impossible for anyone whom God has chosen to be among His elect, despite your denials.
Neither he nor any NSAAer will answer your clear question, with a clear answer because if they did, they, at least eventually, would be forced into rejecting the error they embrace that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation.
LoT like all NSAAers considers all the sacraments to be little more than a technicality or type of "accident of Providence" which makes the sacraments merely optional, based on an individual's circuмstances of course.
In the NSAAers world, God Provides by providing nothing and God substitutes the sacraments with No Sacrament At All at the point of death, and via No Sacrament At All, the person is rewarded salvation!
The problem with your question is that for NSAAers, it forces God into the whole "salvation by desire" equation.
Now they need to admit it is God's will that the one who desires the sacrament is not only denied the sacrament by God, but that it is God's will that the person not receive the sacrament God Himself instituted for the singular purpose of our salvation. How's that for a God "Who is the same yesterday, today, yes and forever"?
If the NSAAers were honest, they'd admit they have no clue why God even instituted any sacrament at all.
Your question was excellent and phrased perfectly - it bears repeating.........
Is it or is it not true, LoT, that in cases of BoD (conceding for a moment that this exists) God wills that the person should not receive the Sacrament of Baptism but that the person should be saved via BoD.
Why would God will that someone should be saved via BoD?
... now that we've dispensed with this "impossibility" nonsense.
-
Do you agree that God has a positive will and a permissive will (a will that allows that which He does not directly intend)? I probably could have worded that better but I believe you will understand the question.
For instance God does not will abortion but allows it.
Please answer my question first.
Permissive will refers to evils not directly willed by God. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. God CAN give the Sacrament of Baptism to anyone He's chosen to save. If He CAN do so, then it follows that if he does NOT do so, it's because He did not WILL it.
You continue to talk about how God cannot be constrained by the Sacraments and yet out of the other side of your mouth continue to claim that God can be constrained by impossibility.
Why would God WILL that someone be saved by Baptism of Desire?
God's permissive will allows for one to be cleansed by Baptism of Desire because His Active Will desires their salvation and His Justice and Mercy does not allow them to be condemned to Hell fire due to something they are not culpable of. Your problem is not with me but with the Catholic Church. Even Father Feeney understood that Trent taught one can be justified by Desire as did the slew of other Theologians repeatedly provided and the almost countless catechisms. But all of them are wrong and the new American Feeneyites are right of course.
Pray to Alphonsus, Aquinas and Bellarmine that you can be satisfied with what the Catholic Church teaches and not insist on publicly contradicting her giants.
God is not locked into technicalities he can cleanse the soul of Original Sin without water and does so.