Author Topic: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur (Read 7564 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #35 on:** May 24, 2014, 07:05:54 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: GJC
I have a question for the forum. If water baptism is the only way to be incorporated into the Church, why does Pope Pius XII define in Mystici Corporis the following:

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

If water baptism were the only way shouldn't this read:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church those who have received the Sacrament of baptism, and profess the true faith,.....

Do you see what I mean?

NSAAers don't use papal teachings - certainly they don't use infallible teachings - according to NSAAers, papal teachings need to be interpreted first otherwise they'll be understood to mean what they say, and they cannot have that.

As far as your above post goes - what is baptism? It's a SACRAMENT.

Thanks for your response, but you did not answer my question. Baptism is a washing or cleansing and a Sacrament is a kind of sign that is sensible. Christ commanded that the only element in this universe that can be used to baptize is water, and as St Augustine says, " The word is added to the element and this becomes the sacrament".

Now Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Repentance (fire) are not Sacraments. Do you see what I mean? Why does Pope Pius XII not specifically define that the Sacrament of Baptism (water) is required to be included as a member of the Church.

Does this mean that all those who condemn Baptism of Blood and Repentance may want to contemplate this matter a little more?

GJC,

I agree with where I think you're trying to go (a defense of BOD) but I don't know that the text you're trying to use to support it is the best. Pius XII is talking about membership, and only the baptized (who profess the faith and have not been severed from the Church) are members; even catechumens are not.

Cantarella · « **Reply #36 on:** May 24, 2014, 07:09:48 PM »

Pope XII needed not to add the word "sacrament". Throughout the Church history it has always been understood that those "baptized" are the ones that have been validly so, this is, when proper matter and form are used. There was no need to specify further. The modernists are the ones that have been twisting defined dogmas by giving them an ambiguous meaning. The unbaptized simply do not belong to the Church, this is, the Body of Christ.

Cantarella · « **Reply #37 on:** May 24, 2014, 07:11:21 PM »

Quote

Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206): EXCATHEDRA

In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #38 on:** May 24, 2014, 08:00:42 PM »

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: GJC
I have a question for the forum. If water baptism is the only way to be incorporated into the Church, why does Pope Pius XII define in Mystici Corporis the following:

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

If water baptism were the only way shouldn't this read:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church those who have received the Sacrament of baptism, and profess the true faith,.....

Do you see what I mean?

NSAAers don't use papal teachings - certainly they don't use infallible teachings - according to NSAAers, papal teachings need to be interpreted first otherwise they'll be understood to mean what they say, and they cannot have that.

As far as your above post goes - what is baptism? It's a SACRAMENT.

Thanks for your response, but you did not answer my question. Baptism is a washing or cleansing and a Sacrament is a kind of sign that is sensible. Christ commanded that the only element in this universe that can be used to baptize is water, and as St Augustine says, " The word is added to the element and this becomes the sacrament".

Now Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Repentance (fire) are not Sacraments. Do you see what I mean? Why does Pope Pius XII not specifically define that the Sacrament of Baptism (water) is required to be included as a member of the Church.

Does this mean that all those who condemn Baptism of Blood and Repentance may want to contemplate this matter a little more?

GJC,

I agree with where I think you're trying to go (a defense of BOD) but I don't know that the text you're trying to use to support it is the best. Pius XII is talking about membership, and only the baptized (who profess the faith and have not been severed from the Church) are members; even catechumens are not.

Since I am new to this forum, it should be known that I do not in anyway support the BOD as it is taught in the world today. I do not believe that people can be saved who are invincibly ignorant, a person can explicitly reject/implicitly accept, anonymous Christian, etc..... You will not even hear me say BOD, it is Baptism of Repentance (fire).

Now I am aware that the Saints used the terminology BOD, however it was always understood that this "desire" was always subordinate to the "vow", e.g. If a person vows do do something by necessity they desire to do it (except liars), but if a person desire to do something that does not mean they have made a vow to do it. Therefore we have marriage vows, priest vows, etc... When has it ever been adequate to "desire to tell the whole truth". I believe this is where God has allowed the enemies to enter the Church, and destroy the EENS Dogma.

By making the vow secondary, now we can have people who are ignorant of the Truth (through no fault of their own), as they say, justified by desiring to vow to do something they do not know exists.

BOD is a question of salvation. Can a man be justified prior to receiving water baptism? We answer yes, and that in such a case, were he to die before achieving water baptism while in this state of justification, such a man would be saved. This is a distinct question from whether or not such a man is a member of the Church. Indeed he belongs to her, but Pius XII is not treating this issue in MCC, he is treating visible membership which requires water baptism (among other things).

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #39 on:** May 24, 2014, 08:22:11 PM »

Quote from: GJC

The reason for the question is so we may think. Unlike Fr. Feeney who believed that a person could be justified before the Sacrament of Baptism, but was unsure what happened to the soul if he/she died without actually receiving it, I am certain they would go to purgatory as St Thomas/St Alphonsus taught.

With that said, do I believe this has ever happened? Well certainly there is not any precedence in scriptures or tradition other then an example from St. Ambrose and Valentinian. So I would presume not, this is why I would always tell someone they must get water baptized.

St. Emerentia as well.

If one refused to or needlessly put off being baptized, they obviously do not desire it. Baptism of desire, therefore, precludes those of bad will in this regard.