Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire  (Read 35716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #90 on: March 20, 2014, 12:22:49 PM »
Quote from: andysloan
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.

Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2014, 12:27:07 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus
 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.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2014, 12:29:53 PM »
Quote from: andysloan
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".

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #93 on: March 20, 2014, 12:35:58 PM »
Quote from: andysloan
Ladislaus:


"I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching."




You do not believe in the Lord's teaching:


Quote from: Singulari Quadam
... 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

Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #94 on: March 20, 2014, 12:37:00 PM »
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

Quote
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!