Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: JohnAnthonyMarie on April 02, 2014, 12:55:14 PM
-
Extra ecclesiam non est salus is not the same as Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae
-
Extra ecclesiam non est salus is not the same as Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae
The key is bad will, BODers just can't accept ALL the dogmas on EENS and baptism as it is written, just like a disciples that walked away from our Lord when he said they had to eat Him. They say "This saying is too hard"
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.”
Even the catechumen are not part of the faithful, let alone what the BODers believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, or mad a Catholic, and they have no belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
-
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)
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Truth never changes.
The Church cannot define new doctrines, contradicting Our Lord's commands. It is the constant teaching of the Church that all public revelation by God ended with the death of the last apostle, John, around the year 100 A.D. This means that all Church doctrines come from the apostolic age, either taught directly by Christ Himself or delivered by the apostles to the Church, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost.
We cannot go to God our way. We can only go to Him His way. He already established His Church and His way of Salvation. Water baptism being the only entrance to life in Christ. We just must obey.
As I said before, the only reason you want to defend BOD, (not even for catechumens only as there has been indeed speculation of, but just about for everyone) is to deny the most important dogma of all, the salutary dogma of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", which also needs to be taken literally. The discussion is not really about BOD, but about Invincible Ignorance.
Once it is demonstrated that BOD was never actually endowed by God, invincible ignorance will inevitably lose any rational standing as a shortcut to eternal bliss. Remember, the discussion is not about BOD but invincible ignorance and denial of the salutary dogma EENS, which is key part of the Modernist agenda. Modernists will, at least in public, affirm the words of the defined dogmas. However, they will teach a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
SJB has been asking them for a source for months, and none ever comes. The reason why is that they make it up, and they have no source.
-
Extra ecclesiam non est salus is not the same as Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae
The key is bad will, BODers just can't accept ALL the dogmas on EENS and baptism as it is written, just like a disciples that walked away from our Lord when he said they had to eat Him. They say "This saying is too hard"
As much as you might want to imagine bad will on my part, your allegation of such is unfounded. I accept all Church teaching, and in my opinion, the word's of our Lord could not ring any clearer "For my yoke is sweet and my burden light."
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
SJB has been asking them for a source for months, and none ever comes. The reason why is that they make it up, and they have no source.
While I would agree with you, I thought I'd provide the opportunity, because in the end, all I desire is to understand the rational for their most obvious disregard for Church authority.
-
For anyone honestly interested in a rebuttal to the Innocent II / Innocent III citations:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#InnocentII
I will simply post refutations to block quotes like this so that anyone who sincerely seeks the truth can read the response and then decide their.
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
SJB has been asking them for a source for months, and none ever comes. The reason why is that they make it up, and they have no source.
While I would agree with you, I thought I'd provide the opportunity, because in the end, all I desire is to understand the rational for their most obvious disregard for Church authority.
They have no good rationale. They reject the teaching of the Council of Trent, the teaching of the Popes, Canon Law, Doctors, Catechisms, and theologians. They pretend that they are orthodox while rejecting Church teaching. They call us Catholics who believe Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Desire either heretics or in error.
But, let's hear what they have to say. As far as I see it, it will be more of the same: private interpretation of John 3:5, a twisting of the canons of Trent, and a rejection of papal teaching, Canon Law, and the teaching of the Doctors and theologians.
-
Not true. I call you a heretic for your EENS-denying "Faith of Desire", not for any notion of "Baptism of Desire". Stop the lie that BoD props up FoD; it doesn't.
There's absolutely ZERO support for this apart from the heretical non-authoritative Suprema Haec, brought to you by the same heresiarchs who were behind Vatican II.
-
Not true. I call you a heretic for your EENS-denying "Faith of Desire", not for any notion of "Baptism of Desire".
You have no authority whatsoever to call me a heretic. Now, if you want to find someone with that authority, I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with them.
I suggest you re-read the Cathinfo rules with regard to your most uncharitable assertion.
-
The fake monk's webpage to which you refer reads like a supermarket gossip rag. I could likely gleam more truth from a single page of the farmer's almanac than their pathetic website.
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
Here are infallible dogmatic statements. There is no room for interpretation. They mean what they say and say what they mean.
THE INFALLIBLE DOGMA OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).
------------------------------------------------
THE NECESSITY OF WATER BAPTISM
The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)
Infallible Magisterium:
A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:
The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, rightly conferred to anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation.
B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):
Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.
C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
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.
D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
Furthermore, those who believe that someone with only the "desire" for Baptism an be saved presume two things that the Church has solemnly condemned:
1. That the Sacrament of Baptism, commanded by God and instituted by Christ Lord, is impossible for some to receive.
Council Of Trent, on Justification (Chapter 11)
"God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, pray for what you cannot do, and He assists you that you may be able. For God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them".
2. That the Sacrament of Baptism could be optional for some (those who die with the desire for Baptism).
"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)
-
Even the Holy Mother Church Herself has no power to contradict or change in any way what Our Lord Christ said and taught when He came to earth. No bishop, no council, no pope, no saint, NO ONE, can change the essential matter or form of a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord. It is part of the Deposit of Faith that the Church is obliged to preserve.
In several occasions the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church has positively declared that no one has the power to innovate anything whatsoever regarding the substance of the Sacraments (substance meaning matter (in this case, natural WATER, and form (words, as expressed in John 3:5).
Pope ST Pius X: "It is well known that the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching the substance of the Sacraments". Thus even the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words or matter in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Pius XII: " As the Council of Trent teaches the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments".
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
-
"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
"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.
Yes, this sentence was provided in the Council's Confession of Faith.
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
This was the last sentence in the Bulla (I thought you might enjoy the second sentence also "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,")
But none of these say there in no salvation without a water baptism. The are repeat that there is no salvation outside the Church.
THE NECESSITY OF WATER BAPTISM
The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)
Infallible Magisterium:
A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:
The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, rightly conferred to anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation.
B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):
Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.
C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
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.
D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
Yes, again, we all agree with the importance of the Sacrament of Baptism, but again, nothing here says that there is no salvation without a water baptism.
Now, how would you rationalize the very high number of Church references in support for Baptism of Desire? Are you saying the Church teaches error with truth?
-
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
Of course I agree with the Pope, and I assume we all agree that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But again, this does not say that there is no salvation without a water baptism. The Church is very exact in the truths declared, I would not dare add or take away from this treasured deposit of Faith.
-
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
Of course I agree with the Pope, and I assume we all agree that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But again, this does not say that there is no salvation without a water baptism. The Church is very exact in the truths declared, I would not dare add or take away from this treasured deposit of Faith.
but if you believe a hindu can be saved for instance,(not sure what your belief is ) he never gets baptised, wouldn't you be contradicting the Pope here
-
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. This is the infallible teaching.
Can you please provide a Church reference that says exactly that? Because we all agree that there is no salvation outside the Church, and we all believe that the Sacrament of Baptism provides inclusion in the Church. But I am not aware (yet) of any quote that says Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae. I am making this request in all sincerity.
You can't see it because you don't want to. You deny ALL the dogmas on EENS and Baptism to teach that anyone can be saved who has no desire to be baptized, martyred, a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Extra ecclesiam non est salus is not the same as Non est salus sine Baptismo aquae
The key is bad will, BODers just can't accept ALL the dogmas on EENS and baptism as it is written, just like a disciples that walked away from our Lord when he said they had to eat Him. They say "This saying is too hard"
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.”
Even the catechumen are not part of the faithful, let alone what the BODers believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, or mad a Catholic, and they have no belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Any person who reads all these dogmas below and still teaches that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, or to be a Catholic, and they have no belief in Christ and the Trinity, can't be convinced by anything, for they are of bad will. There can be no other explanation.
To the Heroin BODer, EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree below does not mean what they say. (remember that a Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic.)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[/color]
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Council of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Chapter VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;
(Just in case anyone wants to refute what that quote above means, I quote below the same thing said at the Council of Florence:)
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
---------------------------------
The following quotations from many Popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. These teachings of the Popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
[
-
Bowler, I reviewed (yet again) your source list of references, but I do not see anything that would indicate that there is no salvation without a water baptism.
If you could just provide a single reference that explicitly condemns Baptism of Desire, I would happily recant the error, but as of right now, you have only confirmed my belief that a condemnation of Baptism of Desire has not occurred.
-
Bowler, I reviewed (yet again) your source list of references, but I do not see anything that would indicate that there is no salvation without a water baptism.
If you could just provide a single reference that explicitly condemns Baptism of Desire, I would happily recant the error, but as of right now, you have only confirmed my belief that a condemnation of Baptism of Desire has not occurred.
First off your BOD is salvation for anyone even if they do not explicitly desire to be baptized, or martyred , or to be a Catholic nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. That "BOD" is condemned by the Council of Florence, the Athanasian Creed, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible), St. Thomas Aquinas, AND is not taught by any Father, Doctor, Saint, or council.
I've only posted it like 100 times, and you choose not to believe the clear dogmatic decree and the rest.
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
-
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
Of course I agree with the Pope, and I assume we all agree that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But again, this does not say that there is no salvation without a water baptism. The Church is very exact in the truths declared, I would not dare add or take away from this treasured deposit of Faith.
but if you believe a hindu can be saved for instance,(not sure what your belief is ) he never gets baptised, wouldn't you be contradicting the Pope here
This question I very much appreciate, because it draws very close to an irrational position. As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
disclaimer - the views expressed by myself are my own, and are not binding on anyone. Feel free to disagree, but help me out with a Church reference before casting my soul to eternal flames. Jesus, Mary, Joseph; Pray for us.
-
Bowler, I reviewed (yet again) your source list of references, but I do not see anything that would indicate that there is no salvation without a water baptism.
If you could just provide a single reference that explicitly condemns Baptism of Desire, I would happily recant the error, but as of right now, you have only confirmed my belief that a condemnation of Baptism of Desire has not occurred.
The dogmas for one, are clear that to be saved one must be a faithful. Only the baptized are called faithful. It's clearly explained, however, like I said, nothing convinces you people because
The key is bad will, BODers just can't accept ALL the dogmas on EENS and baptism as it is written, just like a disciples that walked away from our Lord when he said they had to eat Him. They say "This saying is too hard"
Even the catechumen are not part of the faithful, let alone what the BODers believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, or mad a Catholic, and they have no belief in Christ and the Trinity.
-
Bowler, I reviewed (yet again) your source list of references, but I do not see anything that would indicate that there is no salvation without a water baptism.
If you could just provide a single reference that explicitly condemns Baptism of Desire, I would happily recant the error, but as of right now, you have only confirmed my belief that a condemnation of Baptism of Desire has not occurred.
There is not an explicit reference condemning Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, JohnAnthonyMarie, and precisely because of that, there has been possible speculation on the subject of BOD for catechumens only. Although we do not find a direct condemnation on BOD / B. We CERTAINLY do find what is necessary for salvation. Again it is not about the condemnation of BOD but the contradiction that BOD would mean to the already established doctrine of Salvation. You will not find a SINGLE dogmatic statement that teaches BOD.
Think about it, there is no one in Heaven with the stain of sin. All human beings are born with Original Sin. Baptism is the only way to remit this Sin and enter our life in Christ. We have the infallible Church teaching on how this Sacrament of Baptism must be done and what it does (remission of Original & actual sins), so why to inquiry any further?
I tell you why and this is the explanation why you find three baptisms and not one in modern Catechisms, although the Church teaches infallibly that there is only ONE baptism, not three.
The modern obsession with BOD (as opposed to the speculation on it for catechumens only) has as only purpose the denial of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which is the only position that the triumphant masonic forces cannot and will not tolerate. Think about it, they aim for a one world church under the control of one world government so the Catholic church must be cut down. They do this by subtly teaching that the Church is not really exclusive and that non-Catholics can also be saved through last minute BOD. They want people to be comfortable in their false religions as a distraction from the only true salvific Faith.
To say one does not absolutely need Baptism in order to enter the Church, is to show a poor understanding on the extent of Original Sin, the need of the Church and the Sacraments for redemption and grace, the dogma of Predestination and predilection, and ultimately of God's omnipotence.
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
-
As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
Spoken like a true modernist. You fit right in with the conciliar double speak.
Can you quote any Father, Doctor, Saint saying anything like that?
Here's a real Catholic with some experience on Hindus and peoples "not reached by the gospel":
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.html
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
My Catholic Commentary does not link the wedding garment with the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that the guest (though not prepared for the wedding feast, as none of the invited came and the this guest was gathered last minute by the king's servants) was culpable for his transgression.
-
As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
Spoken like a true modernist. You fit right in with the conciliar double speak.
Well, that's a first, can't say I've ever been compared to a modernist. I guess you glossed over the disclaimer I put in the post, but at any rate, I am still waiting for a single quote from you that requires no conjecture to come up with the pattern of belief that you are displaying here.
-
This is all well and good, but are you really saying that all the Church references to Baptism of Desire are (1) incorrect, and (2) never condemned ?
-
As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
Spoken like a true modernist. You fit right in with the conciliar double speak.
Well, that's a first, can't say I've ever been compared to a modernist. I guess you glossed over the disclaimer I put in the post, but at any rate, I am still waiting for a single quote from you that requires no conjecture to come up with the pattern of belief that you are displaying here.
You believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation AND you believe that after reading all the Dogmatic decrees that I have posted, and you have not a Father, Doctor, Saint or council that teaches what you believe. There is nothing that I can do for you. If God were to raise someone from the dead to tell you, you would not believe it. You are in total denial.
I shake the dust from my feet.
-
There is not an explicit reference condemning Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, JohnAnthonyMarie, and precisely because of that, there has been possible speculation on the subject of BOD for catechumens only. Although we do not find a direct condemnation on BOD / B. We CERTAINLY do find what is necessary for salvation. Again it is not about the condemnation of BOD but the contradiction that BOD would mean to the already established doctrine of Salvation. You will not find a SINGLE dogmatic statement that teaches BOD.
Think about it, there is no one in Heaven with the stain of sin. All human beings are born with Original Sin. Baptism is the only way to remit this Sin and enter our life in Christ. We have the infallible Church teaching on how this Sacrament of Baptism must be done and what it does (remission of Original & actual sins), so why to inquiry any further?
I tell you why and this is the explanation why you find three baptisms and not one in modern Catechisms, although the Church teaches infallibly that there is only ONE baptism, not three.
The modern obsession with BOD (as opposed to the speculation on it for catechumens only) has as only purpose the denial of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which is the only position that the triumphant masonic forces cannot and will not tolerate. Think about it, they aim for a one world church under the control of one world government so the Catholic church must be cut down. They do this by subtly teaching that the Church is not really exclusive and that non-Catholics can also be saved through last minute BOD. They want people to be comfortable in their false religions as a distraction from the only true salvific Faith.
To say one does not absolutely need Baptism in order to enter the Church, is to show a poor understanding on the extent of Original Sin, the need of the Church and the Sacraments for redemption and grace, the dogma of Predestination and predilection, and ultimately of God's omnipotence.
Thank you for your charitable reply.
I have no problem agreeing with you EXCEPT when you limit God's Will. God, and God alone, has the ability to know the disposition of the soul. He and He alone is judge. We, of course, are bound by God's laws. As Catholics, we hold that there is no salvation outside the Church. Period. So, for Baptism of Desire to exist without contradicting God's laws, there must be some Divine operation that provides for the requirements (i.e. maybe God sends an angel to baptize, who knows, I simply trust that the Church teaches all truth, and God will provide as He always does and always has.)
-
Bowler, on the other hand, seems stuck in an unlikely situation, that The Church would teach truth mixed with error, and that God's Will is limited by circuмstance.
-
You believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation AND you believe that after reading all the Dogmatic decrees that I have posted, and you have not a Father, Doctor, Saint or council that teaches what you believe. There is nothing that I can do for you. If God were to raise someone from the dead to tell you, you would not believe it. You are in total denial.
I shake the dust from my feet.
I am glad you are done talking to me. I'll HIDE your posts again in an attempt to find some relief. Everything you said about me is not true. I have provided you with numerous quotes from Church Fathers, Saints, Councils, and Canon Law.
I wonder if you have any source of Grace whatsoever. Do you have a confessor?
-
Fr. F. X. Lasance:
“Out of the Catholic Church none can be saved. This proposition, which highly displeases all sectarians and infidels, is not only clearly established by the authority of Scripture, and by the perpetual and constant belief of the Catholic Church, but it is also evident from reason itself, so that one must needs be blind who does not perceive its truth. This, however, applies only to those persons who culpably and willfully adhere to heresy, or schism, or infidelity, but by no means to those who have been imbued with errors and prejudices from their earliest years, and to whom not even a doubt occurs that they are involved in heresy or schism, or who, if any doubt arises in their minds, earnestly and sincerely seek after the truth; such persons we leave to the judgment of God, to whom it belongs to penetrate and search the thoughts and dispositions of hearts. For it is incompatible with the divine goodness and clemency that any one should suffer eternal torments who is not guilty of a wilful transgression. To assert the contrary would be against the express doctrine of the Church.
Let us hear St. Augustine: ‘We must not,’ says he, ‘class among heretics those persons who, without wilful obstinacy, maintain a false and perverse doctrine, especially if it is not the off-spring of their bold presumption, but a legacy from their deceived and mistaken parents, and who search after the truth with earnest care, being disposed to renounce their error as soon as they are apprised of it.’ —Epist. 43, Edit. Benedict, alias 162. A long list of other Fathers might be cited who are of the same opinion.”
-
Thank you for your charitable reply.
I have no problem agreeing with you EXCEPT when you limit God's Will. God, and God alone, has the ability to know the disposition of the soul. He and He alone is judge. We, of course, are bound by God's laws. As Catholics, we hold that there is no salvation outside the Church. Period. So, for Baptism of Desire to exist without contradicting God's laws, there must be some Divine operation that provides for the requirements (i.e. maybe God sends an angel to baptize, who knows, I simply trust that the Church teaches all truth, and God will provide as He always does and always has.)
Perhaps...who knows? it is precisely because we do not know, that we should adhere to what has been divinely revealed to us and work our salvation in fear and tremble. We know for certainty that God incarnate is Jesus, and this Jesus, the second person of the trinity, founded a Church and revealed to us the new Law of Salvation. We must belong to this Church because God wants it and it is the only way God has revealed humans can be saved.
I for one, in the midst of human error, vice, and greed, adhere loyally to what the Heaven made Church has infallibly defined. When everything else collapses around us, the Church does not, but stays triumphant and immutable. What the Church has NOT definitely defined falls necessary under the realm of speculation and theological opinion only.
Don't you think that in these sad times we live in is best to adhere to solid, timeless, orthodox doctrine? Do you think we do our neighbor a favor by not teaching that he must die a Catholic to enter Heaven? You and I know this and the fact that we do, means God has looked in favor upon us.
So if God came to earth to establish the New LAW of Salvation, it is you who limit God's will by implying that someone can just die before it is time without God intervening. God is definitely capable of bringing a favored soul into the only means of salvation (the Sacraments), this is, the blossom of the visible Catholic Church. He is capable of bringing any soul he wishes to fulfill his LAW of salvation. Baptism is part of the LAW. It is His PROMISE.
-
he modern obsession with BOD (as opposed to the speculation on it for catechumens only) has as only purpose the denial of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which is the only position that the triumphant masonic forces cannot and will not tolerate. Think about it, they aim for a one world church under the control of one world government so the Catholic church must be cut down. They do this by subtly teaching that the Church is not really exclusive and that non-Catholics can also be saved through last minute BOD. They want people to be comfortable in their false religions as a distraction from the only true salvific Faith.
especially good analysis. Thank you.
-
There is not an explicit reference condemning Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, JohnAnthonyMarie, and precisely because of that, there has been possible speculation on the subject of BOD for catechumens only
Cantarella, that's precisely why I disagee with the Dimonds in reffering to BoD for catechumens as heresy ... in addition to the fact that several canonized Doctors held that position.
As you know, my problem is with "Faith of Desire" ... which is truly heretical.
-
As you know, my problem is with "Faith of Desire"... which is truly heretical.
Is this a prerequisite for Traditionalism?
-
As you know, my problem is with "Faith of Desire"... which is truly heretical.
Is this a prerequisite for Traditionalism?
I'm convinced that it is. If I were to be persuaded of Faith of Desire, as per Suprema Haec, then I could not find any error in Vatican II.
-
My comments in blue
Fr. F. X. Lasance:
“Out of the Catholic Church none can be saved. ... This, however, applies only to those persons who culpably and willfully adhere to heresy, or schism, or infidelity, ... (written in the 20th century, you might as well quote Vatican II)
Let us hear St. Augustine: ‘We must not,’ says he, ‘class among heretics those persons who, without willful obstinacy, maintain a false and perverse doctrine, especially if it is not the off-spring of their bold presumption, but a legacy from their deceived and mistaken parents, and who search after the truth with earnest care, being disposed to renounce their error as soon as they are apprised of it.’ —Epist. 43, Edit. Benedict, alias 162. A long list of other Fathers might be cited who are of the same opinion.” (post the "long list", of Fathers who said this. St. Augustine in the end did not even believe that catechumens could be saved, let alone heretics who deny the voice of God who enlightens all).
-
We must not class among heretics those persons who, without willful obstinacy, maintain a false and perverse doctrine, especially if it is not the off-spring of their bold presumption, but a legacy from their deceived and mistaken parents, and who search after the truth with earnest care, being disposed to renounce their error as soon as they are apprised of it.’ —Epist. 43, Edit. Benedict, alias 162.
This is nothing more than a classic definition of MATERIAL HERESY.
Let's understand what material heresy is and what it isn't.
Material heresy does NOT mean that one is "sincere" in one's doctrine, but that one is simply MISTAKEN regarding their understanding whether a particular proposition is taught by the Church or not taught by the Church. These people formally have the faith even if they are mistaken regarding one or another proposition. They have the formal motive of faith.
Let me give you an example: When I was younger, I held several heretical propositions. I had a subordination view of the Holy Trinity and I also thought that the Immaculate Conception was a reference to the conception of Our Lord by Our Lady. As soon as someone pointed out to me that I was mistaken and that it wasn't what the Church taught, I immediately repudiated the opinion and readily and happily embraced the true doctrine ... because I had the formal motive of faith and readily accepted what the Church taught. I was PREDISPOSED to accept WHATEVER the Church taught but was ignorant about what that was. I thought, "Ooops. Sorry." and then accepted the true teaching. Thus St. Augustine's reference to "being disposed to renounce their error as soon as they are apprised of it". This phrase clearly implies that it's just an error based on ignorance of fact, ignorantia facti, as to WHAT the Church actually teaches.
Protestants, however, are in a different category. They will NOT readily accept true doctrine when told that the Church teaches it. Consequently, they lack this necessary formal motive of faith.
In St. Augustine's time, you had groups that believed in one heretical proposition or another, but this idea of Protestantism wherein you would categorically reject Church teaching did not exist. In St. Augustine's time, there was less clarity about what "the Church" taught about certain specific doctrines, so the disagreements were about FACT and not authority.
I'll give you an example from this very forum. There are two groups on these BoD threads who equally insist that the other group is heretical; accusations of heresy have flown back and forth. Both sides however profess their readiness to accept whatever the Church teaches and base their arguments along the lines of "because the Church teaches x and y, therefore z follows". Both start from the underlying premise that what they believe is BECAUSE the Church teaches it. So there's obviously a presumption here that there's no formal heresy.
That is NOT the case with Protestants, who reject the formal motive of faith. Are Protestants "disposed to renounce their error as soon as they are apprised of it"?
-
+AMDG+
Thursday of the Fourth Week in Lent A.D. 2014
Whom God allows into Heaven is His business.
We have to follow as He has taught. Baptism of water is from Christ Himself, He Himself set that example as an absolute necessity for salvation.
That is what we have to strive for and have as an imperative to salvation.
For those who are having difficulty accepting this there seems to be a desire to minimize it and for that their motives have to be closely examined, mostly by themselves.
Why is it so important to you to prove that there is salvation outside of Baptism by water?
Is it from a desire to include persons who out of ignorance have not had a chance to hear the gospel and thus convert?
Or from a desire to justify one's own slothfulness and lack of zeal for preaching the True Faith, thus lessening THEIR culpability THEIR mind for that person's damnation.
IOW, God told you to go and invite everyone to the wedding feast.
He told you - make sure they know that they have to come in garments suitable for a wedding feast, or else they will not be admitted to the feast.
Those that came knowing they were coming to a wedding and should have dressed appropriately were not only thrown out but were punished.
Then God decides He is going to let some of them in because ...
That's His prerogative.
Whoever God admits into the Feast is His business.
Upon seeing that God allowed some into the feast without the appropriate garment, you decide it will no longer be necessary to tell people to come in wedding garments
In fact you should even just sit back and enjoy the feast as you have such a magnanimous host.
You assume they will hear of the party through some mystical means.
You assume since God admitted others previously, He would let others in just as well.
WRONG! A denial of the necessity of BOW is directly connected to the denial of Christ on the Cross!
If you say the person who is "innocent" of being ignorant is saved in his ignorance, then the necessity of Christ dying on the Cross is thus denied.
He is the Most Pure, Most Innocent, Most Undeserving of Punishment - and He had to (suffer) be Sacrificed for our salvation.
*** when in doubt, look upon the Cross, for there lies Our Salvation
-
As you know, my problem is with "Faith of Desire"... which is truly heretical.
Is this a prerequisite for Traditionalism?
I'm convinced that it is. If I were to be persuaded of Faith of Desire, as per Suprema Haec, then I could not find any error in Vatican II.
Then you do not yet understand the heresies and errors of Vatican II.
-
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
Of course I agree with the Pope, and I assume we all agree that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But again, this does not say that there is no salvation without a water baptism. The Church is very exact in the truths declared, I would not dare add or take away from this treasured deposit of Faith.
but if you believe a hindu can be saved for instance,(not sure what your belief is ) he never gets baptised, wouldn't you be contradicting the Pope here
This question I very much appreciate, because it draws very close to an irrational position. As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
disclaimer - the views expressed by myself are my own, and are not binding on anyone. Feel free to disagree, but help me out with a Church reference before casting my soul to eternal flames. Jesus, Mary, Joseph; Pray for us.
The Hindu doesn't believe in Christ, surely I don't have to give you the bible quotes that state you must believe in Christ for a chance to be saved? you correctly state "the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved"...brilliant, why can't you just end it there? you continue with the following perplexing statement
"all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will."
what are you talking about here? of course God can draw the Hindu to Himself but that would mean he converts to Catholicism, the Hindu cannot be saved as a Hindu or else you are calling God a liar, can you not see that?
-
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
Of course I agree with the Pope, and I assume we all agree that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But again, this does not say that there is no salvation without a water baptism. The Church is very exact in the truths declared, I would not dare add or take away from this treasured deposit of Faith.
but if you believe a hindu can be saved for instance,(not sure what your belief is ) he never gets baptised, wouldn't you be contradicting the Pope here
This question I very much appreciate, because it draws very close to an irrational position. As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
disclaimer - the views expressed by myself are my own, and are not binding on anyone. Feel free to disagree, but help me out with a Church reference before casting my soul to eternal flames. Jesus, Mary, Joseph; Pray for us.
The Hindu doesn't believe in Christ, surely I don't have to give you the bible quotes that state you must believe in Christ for a chance to be saved? you correctly state "the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved"...brilliant, why can't you just end it there? you continue with the following perplexing statement
"all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will."
what are you talking about here? of course God can draw the Hindu to Himself but that would mean he converts to Catholicism, the Hindu cannot be saved as a Hindu or else you are calling God a liar, can you not see that?
The topic of the conversation is Baptism of Desire. We are not talking about the normal course of affairs for someone/anyone to become a member of the Catholic Church (i.e catechumen, instruction, baptism, faithful). Again, we are talking about the concept of Baptism of Desire.
While I enjoy your patronization as comic relief, you would do well to follow the rules of this forum and communicate in a manner more becoming a Christian. Don't tell me how to write, don't tell me what to do, don't tell me how to act. If you want to participate in the conversation, please do, if you have some agenda or feel like being a jerk, save yourself the trouble and spare me your discourse.
-
what do you make of this quote, do you agre with the Pope ?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that
baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”68
Of course I agree with the Pope, and I assume we all agree that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But again, this does not say that there is no salvation without a water baptism. The Church is very exact in the truths declared, I would not dare add or take away from this treasured deposit of Faith.
but if you believe a hindu can be saved for instance,(not sure what your belief is ) he never gets baptised, wouldn't you be contradicting the Pope here
This question I very much appreciate, because it draws very close to an irrational position. As the disposition of the Hindu is known to God alone, God alone would be the judge of this soul. Now, could I imagine a situation where the Hindu is completely cut-off from Catholic truth, wherein the Hindu might be just by faithfully observing the natural law, but this would be completely unknown to myself, so from my point of view, I would say that the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved - all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will.
disclaimer - the views expressed by myself are my own, and are not binding on anyone. Feel free to disagree, but help me out with a Church reference before casting my soul to eternal flames. Jesus, Mary, Joseph; Pray for us.
The Hindu doesn't believe in Christ, surely I don't have to give you the bible quotes that state you must believe in Christ for a chance to be saved? you correctly state "the Hindu needs to convert to the Catholic Faith to be saved"...brilliant, why can't you just end it there? you continue with the following perplexing statement
"all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will."
what are you talking about here? of course God can draw the Hindu to Himself but that would mean he converts to Catholicism, the Hindu cannot be saved as a Hindu or else you are calling God a liar, can you not see that?
The topic of the conversation is Baptism of Desire. We are not talking about the normal course of affairs for someone/anyone to become a member of the Catholic Church (i.e catechumen, instruction, baptism, faithful). Again, we are talking about the concept of Baptism of Desire.
While I enjoy your patronization as comic relief, you would do well to follow the rules of this forum and communicate in a manner more becoming a Christian. Don't tell me how to write, don't tell me what to do, don't tell me how to act. If you want to participate in the conversation, please do, if you have some agenda or feel like being a jerk, save yourself the trouble and spare me your discourse.
If i came off as a jerk I apologize, the topic of the converstaion is outside the church no salvation, to not correct your error would be non Christian of me, I am not telling you how to write .....this statement of yours here is confusing.."all the while, God, with exclusive insight to the merits of the Hindu, is the sole arbitrator of the Hindu's eternal disposition, and can draw the Hindu to Himself by His Own Will."
can you clarify exactly what you mean? if you mean God draws the Hindu to himself and makes him convert to Catholicism then I totally agree, if not then you don't believe in outside the church no salvation...no?
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'. At this point in the discussion, we were approaching an extreme position, so I was attempting to toe the line and not step outside the Catholic teaching on the subject. So like I said, in this rather extreme application of Baptism of Desire, the Hindu (or better, any non-Catholic) would have to somehow be pleasing to God to obtain Salvation. The Church has supplied the requirements of this, and I was attempting to describe how those requirements might be meet (perfect contrition, conformance to the natural law, etc.), but most of all, I wanted to be sure to stress that the operation is between God and the soul being judged, and that I/we could not possibly know these things. I believe I am well within the bounds of Catholic teaching on the subject.
As a side note, are you a engineer? Because I assume your name is referring to the gooch valve on a steam locomotion engine (and not a vulgar expression of the perineum)
-
Quick question regarding the implicit baptism of desire. If I understand this, it begins with a premise. That premise is that there are (or has been) people in this world with no knowledge of the faith or normal recourse to it (or the sacraments), that are also in the state of grace i.e. have never sinned knowingly but have never been baptised or have hope to. The whole primitive guy on the desert island thing right. My question is do we actually know with some kind of theological solidity that this case has and does happen? I don't mean we on Cathinfo, but someone like St Thomas or St Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church has worked this out. That there are for sure people in this position. Or does this rest on a hypothetical, as in if such a situation was to occur, God will judge that soul even if it is visibly outside the Church.
Has anyone read anything related to this in all the quotes thrown back and forth on implicit faith?
Luke
-
Quick question regarding the implicit baptism of desire. If I understand this, it begins with a premise. That premise is that there are (or has been) people in this world with no knowledge of the faith or normal recourse to it (or the sacraments), that are also in the state of grace i.e. have never sinned knowingly but have never been baptised or have hope to.
They cannot be in the state of grace, Luke. If they have not been baptized, even if they are not guilty of any actual sin, they are still accountable for Original Sin, at the very least. One of the graces of Baptism is the remission of original and actual sin and the washing away of its stain upon the soul. Nobody enters heaven with a stained soul, Luke. Only through Baptism we are given an actual share in the Divine nature of Christ. The Church has infallibly defined what is needed for Baptism to take place. No need to inquiry further just because of our own subjective sentimental views on "justice" or to feel comfortable in a world plagued by unbelievers, heretics, and apostates. The desire for Baptism does not effect any of these. No need to inquiry further. No need to play God. No need to say but "what if". Christ already came to earth to teach how God wishes to be glorified and the New Law of Salvation. There is NOTHING He left unsaid.
It is as simple as this: Only Christ goes to Heaven. We are incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body through Baptism. The Church and Christ are one. We must visibly belong to the Catholic Church for salvation. All who enters Heaven dies a Catholic. In order to be a Catholic you must be baptized. There is only ONE Baptism (that of water and of the word).
-
Quick question regarding the implicit baptism of desire. If I understand this, it begins with a premise. That premise is that there are (or has been) people in this world with no knowledge of the faith or normal recourse to it (or the sacraments), that are also in the state of grace i.e. have never sinned knowingly but have never been baptised or have hope to. The whole primitive guy on the desert island thing right. My question is do we actually know with some kind of theological solidity that this case has and does happen? I don't mean we on Cathinfo, but someone like St Thomas or St Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church has worked this out. That there are for sure people in this position. Or does this rest on a hypothetical, as in if such a situation was to occur, God will judge that soul even if it is visibly outside the Church.
Has anyone read anything related to this in all the quotes thrown back and forth on implicit faith?
Luke
Luke,
Implicit Baptism of Desire and Implicit Faith are not the same thing.
A Catholic is bound by the teaching of the Holy Office and the consensus of the theologians, therefore under pain of mortal sin to believe Implicit Baptism of Desire.
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'.
But the two are inseparable because outside the Church, no one can enter heaven. Without the sacrament, no one can enter the Church - ergo, without the sacrament, no one can enter heaven.
This is why if you believe in salvation via a BOD, which is no sacrament at all, you then necessarily believe that there is salvation for those outside the Church, this is the foundational theology behind a BOD, which rejects the dogma EENS.
The foundational belief of a BOD, necessarily rejects the dogma EENS. Belief in salvation via a BOD is the belief that there is salvation without the Church at all, because outside the Church, there are no sacraments.
So to say 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism' is to speak grave error because Trent infallibly decreed that salvation cannot be attained without the sacrament - and there are no sacraments outside the Church.
-
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
Just a week ago you called me "temerarious" for rejecting implicit faith.
Suprema Haec teaches that one can have faith that's implicit in wanting to conform one's will to God's.
-
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
Just a week ago you called me "temerarious" for rejecting implicit faith.
Suprema Haec teaches that one can have faith that's implicit in wanting to conform one's will to God's.
No, for rejecting implicit BoD.
-
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
Just a week ago you called me "temerarious" for rejecting implicit faith.
Suprema Haec teaches that one can have faith that's implicit in wanting to conform one's will to God's.
No, for rejecting implicit BoD.
When you say that you believe in implicit BoD you really mean implicit faith and faith of desire. Implicit BoD is the BoD implicit in wanting to become a Catholic, after having embraced the Catholic faith. I want to become a Catholic, but just don't explicitly think "I want to be baptized." That's implicit desire for Baptism.
If you say that someone who doesn't have the Catholic faith can be saved (as you do), then you believe in implicit faith. You play word games. You pay lipservice to EENS but then say EENS really means the opposite of EENS.
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'.
But the two are inseparable because outside the Church, no one can enter heaven. Without the sacrament, no one can enter the Church - ergo, without the sacrament, no one can enter heaven.
Here then is a point at which we disagree. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught this. This is the type of conjecture that seems out of place to me here. Would it be possible for you to provide an authoritative Church reference that draws this same conclusion?
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
-
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
Just a week ago you called me "temerarious" for rejecting implicit faith.
Suprema Haec teaches that one can have faith that's implicit in wanting to conform one's will to God's.
No, for rejecting implicit BoD.
When you say that you believe in implicit BoD you really mean implicit faith and faith of desire. Implicit BoD is the BoD implicit in wanting to become a Catholic, after having embraced the Catholic faith. I want to become a Catholic, but just don't explicitly think "I want to be baptized." That's implicit desire for Baptism.
If you say that someone who doesn't have the Catholic faith can be saved (as you do), then you believe in implicit faith. You play word games. You pay lipservice to EENS but then say EENS really means the opposite of EENS.
No, terms have meanings. You seem confused about what implicit Baptism of Desire is. Implicit Baptism of Desire is not synonymous with "implicit Faith." "Faith of Desire" is a made up term by you and Bowler.
Baptism of Desire must contain three elements:
1. An actual desire for the sacrament, either explicit or implicit.
2. Supernatural Faith.
3. Perfect charity
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
No, the text specifically states that the wedding garment is charity, not Baptism. BoD also removes original and actual sin, justifies a man, and makes him an adopted son of God.
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'. At this point in the discussion, we were approaching an extreme position, so I was attempting to toe the line and not step outside the Catholic teaching on the subject. So like I said, in this rather extreme application of Baptism of Desire, the Hindu (or better, any non-Catholic) would have to somehow be pleasing to God to obtain Salvation. The Church has supplied the requirements of this, and I was attempting to describe how those requirements might be meet (perfect contrition, conformance to the natural law, etc.), but most of all, I wanted to be sure to stress that the operation is between God and the soul being judged, and that I/we could not possibly know these things. I believe I am well within the bounds of Catholic teaching on the subject.
As a side note, are you a engineer? Because I assume your name is referring to the gooch valve on a steam locomotion engine (and not a vulgar expression of the perineum)
no engineer, nickname given from childhood, I don't think the kid knew about the perineum, I didn't know until now...as for the Hindu I don't find in catholic teaching how the Hindu can be pleasing to God unless he's converted.
-
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
Just a week ago you called me "temerarious" for rejecting implicit faith.
Suprema Haec teaches that one can have faith that's implicit in wanting to conform one's will to God's.
No, for rejecting implicit BoD.
When you say that you believe in implicit BoD you really mean implicit faith and faith of desire. Implicit BoD is the BoD implicit in wanting to become a Catholic, after having embraced the Catholic faith. I want to become a Catholic, but just don't explicitly think "I want to be baptized." That's implicit desire for Baptism.
If you say that someone who doesn't have the Catholic faith can be saved (as you do), then you believe in implicit faith. You play word games. You pay lipservice to EENS but then say EENS really means the opposite of EENS.
No, terms have meanings. You seem confused about what implicit Baptism of Desire is. Implicit Baptism of Desire is not synonymous with "implicit Faith." "Faith of Desire" is a made up term by you and Bowler.
Baptism of Desire must contain three elements:
1. An actual desire for the sacrament, either explicit or implicit.
2. Supernatural Faith.
3. Perfect charity
can you give me a specific example of explicit and implicit desire for the sacrament?
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
The Church says otherwise.
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'. At this point in the discussion, we were approaching an extreme position, so I was attempting to toe the line and not step outside the Catholic teaching on the subject. So like I said, in this rather extreme application of Baptism of Desire, the Hindu (or better, any non-Catholic) would have to somehow be pleasing to God to obtain Salvation. The Church has supplied the requirements of this, and I was attempting to describe how those requirements might be meet (perfect contrition, conformance to the natural law, etc.), but most of all, I wanted to be sure to stress that the operation is between God and the soul being judged, and that I/we could not possibly know these things. I believe I am well within the bounds of Catholic teaching on the subject.
That which I have expressed is theoretical; It merely holds out the possibility, as does the Church. Now, practically, it doesn't seem possible to me, because in a purely physical sense, I can not imagine a place on Earth that has not heard the Holy name of our Lord, the Christ Jesus. And even a casual investigation of Christianity would feature the primary role of the Catholic Church. All the while, I am compelled to conform to Church teaching on the subject and hold out the possibility, even as slight as it may be, for Baptism of Desire. Here though, considering that it is entirely possible for someone to be raised in a situation that would influence their perception of reality, I can imagine a person thinking that what they are doing is pleasing to God within the context of their environment, being ignorant of the truth. But this ignorance (in my opinion) only goes so far, and that is exactly why I just leave the whole affair up to God. If a Hindu were to ask me about the possibility of their salvation, I would direct them to a Priest with all haste, and inform them that "there is no salvation outside the Church".
-
...as for the Hindu I don't find in catholic teaching how the Hindu can be pleasing to God unless he's converted.
Here follows authoritative Catholic teaching on the topic:
On Promotion of False Doctrines - Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863.
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
-
[Ambrose says t]he Church says otherwise.
There. Fixed it for you, Ambrose.
-
[Ambrose says t]he Church says otherwise.
There. Fixed it for you, Ambrose.
Baptism of Desire removes original and actual sin. The Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium has spoken. To deny that is heresy.
-
An implicit Baptism of Desire must contain the following: supernatural Faith, charity, and the implicit desire for Baptism.
No one is required to believe the concept of implicit Faith.
Just a week ago you called me "temerarious" for rejecting implicit faith.
Suprema Haec teaches that one can have faith that's implicit in wanting to conform one's will to God's.
No, for rejecting implicit BoD.
When you say that you believe in implicit BoD you really mean implicit faith and faith of desire. Implicit BoD is the BoD implicit in wanting to become a Catholic, after having embraced the Catholic faith. I want to become a Catholic, but just don't explicitly think "I want to be baptized." That's implicit desire for Baptism.
If you say that someone who doesn't have the Catholic faith can be saved (as you do), then you believe in implicit faith. You play word games. You pay lipservice to EENS but then say EENS really means the opposite of EENS.
No, terms have meanings. You seem confused about what implicit Baptism of Desire is. Implicit Baptism of Desire is not synonymous with "implicit Faith." "Faith of Desire" is a made up term by you and Bowler.
Baptism of Desire must contain three elements:
1. An actual desire for the sacrament, either explicit or implicit.
2. Supernatural Faith.
3. Perfect charity
can you give me a specific example of explicit and implicit desire for the sacrament?
I cannot give you an example since the process works invisibly, and is only known to God. Those who die prior to Baptism are not members of the Church, which would make it visible.
-
I think I have it figured out now; If I ever see a catechumen die on their way to baptism, I'm going to push them through the door, because we all know there is no salvation outside the Church.
-
...as for the Hindu I don't find in catholic teaching how the Hindu can be pleasing to God unless he's converted.
Here follows authoritative Catholic teaching on the topic:
On Promotion of False Doctrines - Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863.
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
I believe Peter Dimond explains this passage well
Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly
ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they
111
cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by
God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel]
attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the
truth and into the Church by baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred
Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which
removes the ignorant from darkness.
Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord.
Walk then as children of the light.”
1 Thess. 5:4‐5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness... For all you
are the children of the light.”
Colossians 1:12‐13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy
to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the
power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His
love.”
1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation... a purchased people: that you may
declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous
light.”
2 Corinthians 4:3‐4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In
whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
not shine unto them.”
2 Timothy 1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior
Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and
incorruption by the Gospel.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I (+1870): “... no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the
Gospel,’ as he must to attain salvation, without the illumination and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and
believing the truth.”316
So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the
good‐willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their
clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received
by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized. Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur
Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good‐willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the
Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will
enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.
112
I realize that Pope Pius IX was not nearly as clear as he could have been in the second
half of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The heretics have had a field day with it, because
they think that they can exploit its wording to favor their heresy that there is salvation
outside the Church. If Pope Pius IX had repeated in a strong way the previous
definitions of the popes, without any ambiguous language, he would have avoided the
danger of modernists misinterpreting his words. This is a shame because almost all of his
statements on this topic do very clearly affirm Church dogma without any ambiguity
that heretics can jump on.
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that
the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine
that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine,
received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also
contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and
Oriental Catholics).”317
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal
Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular
prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one
faith and one baptism.”318
Pope Pius IX‐ Syllabus of Modern Errors‐ Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may,
in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and
arrive at eternal salvation.” 319 – Condemned
Notice again that the concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is
condemned here. The concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant,” as it is held by
almost everyone who holds it today, is that some men – including those who observe
non‐Catholic religions – can find and arrive at salvation in these religions because they
are “without fault of their own.” But this is heretical and condemned by Pius IX’s own
Syllabus of Errors above.
-
So, I provide you with authoritative teaching from a Pope, and you reply with the ramblings of a pretend monk? Seriously? Sorry, but that is disappointing. Tell the two self-appointed witnesses of the apocalypse I say hi.
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'.
But the two are inseparable because outside the Church, no one can enter heaven. Without the sacrament, no one can enter the Church - ergo, without the sacrament, no one can enter heaven.
Here then is a point at which we disagree. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught this. This is the type of conjecture that seems out of place to me here. Would it be possible for you to provide an authoritative Church reference that draws this same conclusion?
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
This is ex cathedra - you are bound under pain of sin to believe this infallible teaching.
However - if you believe in a BOD, then rather than "through it" - you wrongfully believe "without it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church."
-
I think I have it figured out now; If I ever see a catechumen die on their way to baptism, I'm going to push them through the door, because we all know there is no salvation outside the Church.
In charity - you of little faith - you who believe in a God who would take a catechumen before he gets baptized.
God is not a sadist, yet if such an unspeakable thing ever did happen, if you have faith, you would side with God, not the catechumen! The fact that you can even think in such a way demonstrates a decided lack of faith in God, in you.
Our faith teaches us that if such a situation ever occurred, that even if that catechumen lived for a thousand years, he would have STILL died and gone to hell, so in His mercy, God took him at the time He took him in order to spare him even greater eternal punishments!
We were taught that if such a tragedy ever actually happened at all, it was because God, who sees into the depths of our hearts, knew what others did not - that the catechumen was insincere in his conversion and fooled everyone - except God.
If you have faith, you would KNOW that God would NEVER, not in all eternity, take from this earth any one who needed the sacrament and sincerely desired it, until God provided it to that person with the exact same providence He provided the sacrament to you! We have that promise directly from God Himself on that.
Mat. 7:7 *Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.
8 For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
9 *Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?
10 Or if he shall ask a fish, will he reach him a serpent?
11 If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
-
I think I have it figured out now; If I ever see a catechumen die on their way to baptism, I'm going to push them through the door, because we all know there is no salvation outside the Church.
In charity - you of little faith - you who believe in a God who would take a catechumen before he gets baptized.
God is not a sadist, yet if such an unspeakable thing ever did happen, if you have faith, you would side with God, not the catechumen! The fact that you can even think in such a way demonstrates a decided lack of faith in God, in you.
Our faith teaches us that if such a situation ever occurred, that even if that catechumen lived for a thousand years, he would have STILL died and gone to hell, so in His mercy, God took him at the time He took him in order to spare him even greater eternal punishments!
We were taught that if such a tragedy ever actually happened at all, it was because God, who sees into the depths of our hearts, knew what others did not - that the catechumen was insincere in his conversion and fooled everyone - except God.
If you have faith, you would KNOW that God would NEVER, not in all eternity, take from this earth any one who needed the sacrament and sincerely desired it, until God provided it to that person with the exact same providence He provided the sacrament to you! We have that promise directly from God Himself on that.
Mat. 7:7 *Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.
8 For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
9 *Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?
10 Or if he shall ask a fish, will he reach him a serpent?
11 If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
That is beautiful!
God is great!
God is all just!
God knows who, in their hearts, love Him for Himself, above all else, and would die for Him with the faith of martyrs, such as Perpetua and Felicitas.
He will never abandon them and deprive them the sacraments necessary for their salvation.
p.s. Thank you stubborn, I always said, one needs to use their stubbornness for God's glory.
-
So, I provide you with authoritative teaching from a Pope, and you reply with the ramblings of a pretend monk? Seriously? Sorry, but that is disappointing. Tell the two self-appointed witnesses of the apocalypse I say hi.
Wrong , what's disappointing is instead of pointing out how or where they are wrong you attack them with your ramblings..Seriously? This is not the Christian way
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'.
But the two are inseparable because outside the Church, no one can enter heaven. Without the sacrament, no one can enter the Church - ergo, without the sacrament, no one can enter heaven.
Here then is a point at which we disagree. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught this. This is the type of conjecture that seems out of place to me here. Would it be possible for you to provide an authoritative Church reference that draws this same conclusion?
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
No one is going to disagree that "The Decree for the Armenians" does not apply to the Sacrament of Baptism, but we are not talking about the Sacrament of Baptism are we? We are discussing something different entirely. My point remains, each part of your assertion is true in of itself, but that which follows the "ergo" is conjecture, and there is no place here for unauthorized conjecture. My request was very simple, show me where the Church teaches that there is no salvation without a water baptism. This is because the conjecture supplied contradicts other Church teaching, like for example the definitions of the Council of Trent.
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 laver 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).
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism:
"The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism."
Continuing the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism:
"An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of Scripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: "Unless a man be born again of water". Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever. "
More from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism:
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
By denying Baptism of Desire, you are effectively saying the Church has taught error for near over a hundred years, and any Catholic rightly knows this is not possible.
-
So, I provide you with authoritative teaching from a Pope, and you reply with the ramblings of a pretend monk? Seriously? Sorry, but that is disappointing. Tell the two self-appointed witnesses of the apocalypse I say hi.
Wrong , what's disappointing is instead of pointing out how or where they are wrong you attack them with your ramblings..Seriously? This is not the Christian way
We are dangerously engaged in a religious debate, and I would be one to remind us that this type of action is strictly forbidden. The Dimond musings are not authoritative in any way, they manipulate Church references for their own end. I am confident that even a cursory search of the topic online will provide you with more than enough examples of the deceptive tactics.
Online source (http://stevensperay.wordpress.com) -
To begin, Bro. Peter Dimond is very fond of using and quoting the phrase “absolute necessity” in regards to Baptism, but fails to make distinctions between “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” and between ordinary circuмstances and extraordinary circuмstances.
There’s no question that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. It’s taught everywhere by everyone. Each time that exceptions are given by the same Church authorities, who teach the absolute necessity of Baptism, Dimond assumes there’s a contradiction. He simply refuses to accept that the phrase “absolute necessity” used by popes, synods, etc. on the sacrament of baptism is attributed to “necessity of precept” and ordinary circuмstances. The laws, catechisms, and papal writings clearly explain or imply a difference. Dimond dismisses them all as having no real authority because they don’t square up to his understanding. In other words, Dimond’s understanding of the usage of “absolute necessity” overrides all the Church’s explanations and laws.
Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”
The Sacred Cannons by Rev. John A. Abbo, S.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.”
Canon 737 declares, “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation….”
This canon ends the debate on the Church’s official interpretation of Canon 4 of the Council of Trent.
However, Dimond argues that since the law contradicts (his understanding of) the dogma, goes against the long history of not treating catechumens as baptized, and was not signed by the pope, the Code of Law is fallible, and, in this case, heretical.
Dimond’s failure to make proper distinctions and apply nuances correctly keeps him from accepting the Church’s explanations.
Dimond quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia and states: “The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to beemployed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial forcatechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right.” (Outside of the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, Bro. Peter Dimond, p. 160 )
The problem is that the same argument could be used against the Latin Rite for refusing the Chalice to the Faithful. Since the Church never prohibited the faithful receiving the Chalice for hundreds of years, does that make the new law erroneous or heretical? For over a thousand years, the Church always gave infants Communion with Baptism. Did Rome error for contradicting the entire history of the Church when it changed the law? Both of these laws are tied to the Faith, too. Many more examples could be given, but these two suffice.
Because a Church law, which is tied to the Faith, changed after so many years doesn’t imply that it’s heretical, unless of course, the law was previously condemned as heretical or intrinsically evil, which, of course, is impossible less the Gates of Hell prevail.
Dimond continues, “The 1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either, as proven by the fact that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith. The actual Bull promulgating the 1917 Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of State, was the main author and compiler of the canons. Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in the following teaching of Pope Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.” 431
This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the “Catholic” (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church.”
The problem with Dimond’s argument here is two-fold.
The 1917 Code was approved by the Church.
It doesn’t have to be signed by the pope. There was a big celebration by Pope Benedict XV when he promulgated the Code of Law. Pope St. Pius X condemned those who don’t accept the authority of those decisions that are approved by the Pontiff. The Code of Law has been approved by Pope Benedict XV and Dimond rejects it, thus he’s condemned by Pope St. Pius X.
Dimond is basically arguing that the law of the Church is meaningless, has no real authority, and in the end harmful. It’s simply preposterous to claim that some laws in the code are heretical and aren’t authoritative because the pope didn’t sign it. Dimond’s cafeteria style of accepting only the laws he thinks are orthodox is the height of arrogance. His rejection of the law of the Church places him in the realm of antichrist.
Further Consequences
The consequences of rejecting the law of the Church is damning because the application of the law trickles down to the practice of the Church. We have funeral masses for catechumes. Dimond would have to say that these masses lead to impiety because they imply Baptism of Desire and would necessarily lead one to believe in Baptism of Desire.
If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema [cf. n. 943]. Can. 7. The Council of Trent, Session XXII, (D. 954).
Dimond’s position necessarily requires for him to reject funeral masses for catechumens.
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema. Can. 13. The Council of Trent, Session VII, (D. 856).
Dimond’s position necessarily requires the priest to disdain the approved rite of funeral masses said for catechumens.
I’m not a canon lawyer or theologian, but it appears that Dimond falls under two anathemas of the Council of Trent, which he uses to argue against Baptism of Desire. How ironic!
Secondly, we don’t judge laws as fallible or infallible based on our own personal interpretation whether they correspond or contradict canons, dogmas, etc.
Dimond doesn’t just pick and choose what law he’ll believe, but he makes the determination what level of authority it has and whether it’s Catholic or not.
Fallible laws (I’m not necessarily saying the Code is fallible) doesn’t preclude that we can call them harmful, evil, or dangerous and therefore, reject them.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832): “Furthermore, the discipline [includes laws] sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833): “…[the evil “reformers”] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?”
Pope Gregory XVI is condemning Dimond for appropriating for himself the right which is proper only for the pope.
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794): “The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced ‘in every article that which pertains to faith and to essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,’ it adds, ‘in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism’; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, – false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Denzinger 1578; DS 2678)
Pope Pius VI condemns Dimond’s proposition that canons 1239.2 and 737 are dangerous because they are heretical leading men to believe in Baptism of Desire [superstition according to MHFM].
Dimond also makes accusations against other laws found in the Code by misrepresenting the meanings of each of the particular laws. However, for the sake of brevity, we’ll stop here.
-
I think I have it figured out now; If I ever see a catechumen die on their way to baptism, I'm going to push them through the door, because we all know there is no salvation outside the Church.
In charity - you of little faith - you who believe in a God who would take a catechumen before he gets baptized.
God is not a sadist, yet if such an unspeakable thing ever did happen, if you have faith, you would side with God, not the catechumen! The fact that you can even think in such a way demonstrates a decided lack of faith in God, in you.
Our faith teaches us that if such a situation ever occurred, that even if that catechumen lived for a thousand years, he would have STILL died and gone to hell, so in His mercy, God took him at the time He took him in order to spare him even greater eternal punishments!
We were taught that if such a tragedy ever actually happened at all, it was because God, who sees into the depths of our hearts, knew what others did not - that the catechumen was insincere in his conversion and fooled everyone - except God.
If you have faith, you would KNOW that God would NEVER, not in all eternity, take from this earth any one who needed the sacrament and sincerely desired it, until God provided it to that person with the exact same providence He provided the sacrament to you! We have that promise directly from God Himself on that.
Mat. 7:7 *Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.
8 For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
9 *Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?
10 Or if he shall ask a fish, will he reach him a serpent?
11 If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
That is beautiful!
God is great!
God is all just!
God knows who, in their hearts, love Him for Himself, above all else, and would die for Him with the faith of martyrs, such as Perpetua and Felicitas.
He will never abandon them and deprive them the sacraments necessary for their salvation.
p.s. Thank you stubborn, I always said, one needs to use their stubbornness for God's glory.
This entire diatribe is so offensive I truly wonder how evil you and your cheerleader here really are. I can hardly believe the manner in which you bring God Himself into this sad mix of ridicule and condensation, the audacity of it all is beyond belief.
By the way, just for the record, my post to which you are replying is quite obviously intended to lighten things up a bit.
-
Fair enough, I apologize for being short with you.
I started the thread, and you might notice in the original post I made a distinction that was the desired topic of discussion. I said, 'there is no salvation outside the Church' is not the same as 'there is no salvation without a water baptism'.
But the two are inseparable because outside the Church, no one can enter heaven. Without the sacrament, no one can enter the Church - ergo, without the sacrament, no one can enter heaven.
Here then is a point at which we disagree. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught this. This is the type of conjecture that seems out of place to me here. Would it be possible for you to provide an authoritative Church reference that draws this same conclusion?
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
No one is going to disagree that "The Decree for the Armenians" does not apply to the Sacrament of Baptism, but we are not talking about the Sacrament of Baptism are we? We are discussing something different entirely. My point remains, each part of your assertion is true in of itself, but that which follows the "ergo" is conjecture, and there is no place here for unauthorized conjecture. My request was very simple, show me where the Church teaches that there is no salvation without a water baptism. This is because the conjecture supplied contradicts other Church teaching, like for example the definitions of the Council of Trent.
By denying Baptism of Desire, you are effectively saying the Church has taught error for near over a hundred years, and any Catholic rightly knows this is not possible.
The Church cannot teach error.
The Church infallibly taught the answer to your question: ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ with words that cannot be mistaken, but you choose to reject certainly infallible teaching in favor of teaching from text books - then say the text books are "Church teaching".
You fool only yourself - and others whose faith is as weak as yours.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
-
error correction, I mistakenly said "No one is going to disagree that 'The Decree for the Armenians' does not apply to the Sacrament of Baptism" where I ment to say "No one is going to disagree that "The Decree for the Armenians" does apply to the Sacrament of Baptism"
As for your continued uncharitable comments like "You fool only yourself - and others whose faith is as weak as yours.", I will choose to ignore your ignorance of both myself and my faith. Further, here forward, I am forced to ignore you because you have proved yourself contrary to the Catholic Faith. Your prideful and arrogant manner is distasteful, and your offenses here have exceeded, once again, standards of acceptable social behavior. I highly recommend you seek help from a qualified priest to assist you with your sociopathic tendencies.
-
error correction, I mistakenly said "No one is going to disagree that 'The Decree for the Armenians' does not apply to the Sacrament of Baptism" where I ment to say "No one is going to disagree that "The Decree for the Armenians" does apply to the Sacrament of Baptism"
As for your continued uncharitable comments like "You fool only yourself - and others whose faith is as weak as yours.", I will choose to ignore your ignorance of both myself and my faith. Further, here forward, I am forced to ignore you because you have proved yourself contrary to the Catholic Faith. Your prideful and arrogant manner is distasteful, and your offenses here have exceeded, once again, standards of acceptable social behavior. I highly recommend you seek help from a qualified priest to assist you with your sociopathic tendencies.
Unfortunately, this is the effect of heresy on a soul. Once one chooses the path of rejecting the doctrine of the Church, it disfigures their soul.
SJB, myself, Michael 93, Sunbeam, and so many others have presented the teaching of the Church for months on here with approved sources, and it has not moved these people.
In my opinion, the only remedy left that may save these people will be a Pope, who will then correct their heresy with the voice of authority. Some will hopefully hear him, recant, and embrace the Catholic teaching, while others in their obstinacy may choose excommunication.
-
Hhmmm, lets see, you are waiting for a Pope like Francis, who believes like you, agrees with you, preaches salvation without any sacrament at all, just like you and the other sacrament despisers - yet you say he is not the pope. FYI, you are like a guy at the airport waiting for a plane that took off 50 years ago.
The next good pope can only repeat that which has already been defined infallibly, which will necessarily infallibly condemn salvation without any sacrament at all - again.
-
Hhmmm, lets see, you are waiting for a Pope like Francis, who believes like you, agrees with you, preaches salvation without any sacrament at all, just like you and the other sacrament despisers - yet you say he is not the pope. FYI, you are like a guy at the airport waiting for a plane that took off 50 years ago.
The next good pope can only repeat that which has already been defined infallibly, which will necessarily infallibly condemn salvation without any sacrament at all - again.
No, I am waiting for God to send us a Pope. The next Pope will most certainly condemn your heresy and reaffirm EENS and Baptism of Desire.
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
Please, if you would.
Define this truth that I may assent to it. What exactly is it that I must believe?
Thank you so much, and God bless.
JoeZ
-
error correction, I mistakenly said "No one is going to disagree that 'The Decree for the Armenians' does not apply to the Sacrament of Baptism" where I ment to say "No one is going to disagree that "The Decree for the Armenians" does apply to the Sacrament of Baptism"
As for your continued uncharitable comments like "You fool only yourself - and others whose faith is as weak as yours.", I will choose to ignore your ignorance of both myself and my faith. Further, here forward, I am forced to ignore you because you have proved yourself contrary to the Catholic Faith. Your prideful and arrogant manner is distasteful, and your offenses here have exceeded, once again, standards of acceptable social behavior. I highly recommend you seek help from a qualified priest to assist you with your sociopathic tendencies.
Did you not read my answer, an infallible teaching quoted directly for the Council of Florence? - which infallibly and directly proves to you that you are completely wrong and that EENS and the sacrament are inseparable, exactly as I said?
You are the typical Sacrament despiser - if you would like to prove me wrong on that, then please, do your Catholic duty and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation!
When you find out that to do so, is for you, an impossibility - use that as a clue that there is something wrong with you for not being able to defend that, which to you, is not necessary at all.
FYI, interesting to note that the quote I gave you from the Council of Florence is also one of the quotes bowler posted in his thread from a few weeks ago: "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written".
The thing is, you do not even acknowledge it, choosing rather ignore it and focus solely at my correction aimed at you.
Typical of all sacrament despisers everywhere.
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
So says one of the chief sacrament despisers.
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
Please, if you would.
Define this truth that I may assent to it. What exactly is it that I must believe?
Thank you so much, and God bless.
JoeZ
Joe,
The following is from 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and is a very concise description of Catholic belief:
SOURCE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X)
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
So says one of the chief sacrament despisers.
To despise the sacraments, is to despise Catholic doctrine on the Sacraments. That is what the Feeneyites and followers of the Dimonds do.
-
Thank you for your time and concern. My observations are in red.
Again, God bless
JoeZ
Joe,
The following is from 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and is a very concise description of Catholic belief:
SOURCE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X)
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). Three kinds of baptism must be reconciled with the Creed as I confess one baptism for the remission of sin. However, only the first is a real sacrament. St. Alphonsus Liguori disagrees here in his teaching of baptism of desire where he states desire takes the place of water in the sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, The Council of Trent forbids a metaphorical interpretation of John 3:5. inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.Can the grace of a sarament be had without the form or matter? I'll have to research this. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.What is a "moral" impossibility? If by moral they mean to say that the persons behavior prohibits a water baptism, how could the will which ordered such behavior be at all perfect? Can eternal life be obtained This sentence is an opinion and one must determine the weight of the speaker.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by (My translation says without) the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto)Trent here means both are necessary, not that one or the other is good enough. To think otherwise is to accept the efficacy of forced baptisms. If desire alone is enough, then water alone is enough. I must reject that.. The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.)He does seem to teach that a Jew is saved here, but how does this reconcile with the necessity of the sacraments and again, can the grace of the sacraments be received without the form and matter?, and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.Please help me here. Are the propositions of Baius condemned? So the proposition written in my Denzinger #1033 is Baius' condemned error? Is not St Pius V condemning the idea that the catechumen can receive that which only comes from water if he believes well?
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." Thomas Hutchinson claims St. Ambrose knew of the actual baptism of Valentinian but could not reveal it as it was a state secret, probably tied to the circuмstances of his death.St. Ambrose could be ambiguous here to console his audience and still not break faith with some of his quotes concerning the necessity of water.St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.Here again is a series of opinions and the authority of the speaker must be examined when they seemingly contradict defined statements.
The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults.I understand that baptism of blood is an initiation into martyrdom, that crown which distinguishes those who died with Christ in a more bloody manner then those of us who are only buried in water. A second baptism like Holy Orders in that baptism is still necessary, but the religious and martyrs are forever distinct. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
To the OP,
I'm sorry to hijack your thread and will try to limit myself.
JoeZ
-
Thank you for your time and concern. My observations are in red.
Again, God bless
JoeZ
Joe,
The following is from 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and is a very concise description of Catholic belief:
SOURCE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X)
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). Three kinds of baptism must be reconciled with the Creed as I confess one baptism for the remission of sin. However, only the first is a real sacrament. St. Alphonsus Liguori disagrees here in his teaching of baptism of desire where he states desire takes the place of water in the sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, The Council of Trent forbids a metaphorical interpretation of John 3:5. inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.Can the grace of a sarament be had without the form or matter? I'll have to research this. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.What is a "moral" impossibility? If by moral they mean to say that the persons behavior prohibits a water baptism, how could the will which ordered such behavior be at all perfect? Can eternal life be obtained This sentence is an opinion and one must determine the weight of the speaker.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by (My translation says without) the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto)Trent here means both are necessary, not that one or the other is good enough. To think otherwise is to accept the efficacy of forced baptisms. If desire alone is enough, then water alone is enough. I must reject that.. The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.)He does seem to teach that a Jew is saved here, but how does this reconcile with the necessity of the sacraments and again, can the grace of the sacraments be received without the form and matter?, and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.Please help me here. Are the propositions of Baius condemned? So the proposition written in my Denzinger #1033 is Baius' condemned error? Is not St Pius V condemning the idea that the catechumen can receive that which only comes from water if he believes well?
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." Thomas Hutchinson claims St. Ambrose knew of the actual baptism of Valentinian but could not reveal it as it was a state secret, probably tied to the circuмstances of his death.St. Ambrose could be ambiguous here to console his audience and still not break faith with some of his quotes concerning the necessity of water.St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.Here again is a series of opinions and the authority of the speaker must be examined when they seemingly contradict defined statements.
The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults.I understand that baptism of blood is an initiation into martyrdom, that crown which distinguishes those who died with Christ in a more bloody manner then those of us who are only buried in water. A second baptism like Holy Orders in that baptism is still necessary, but the religious and martyrs are forever distinct. (Cf. Franciscois Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
To the OP,
I'm sorry to hijack your thread and will try to limit myself.
JoeZ
Joe,
The Creed is professing one Baptism that cannot be repeated, it is not referring to Baptism of Desire.
The Council of Trent has infallibly taught Baptism of desire as has the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. A Catholic is not at liberty to reject this teaching.
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
No, the text specifically states that the wedding garment is charity, not Baptism. BoD also removes original and actual sin, justifies a man, and makes him an adopted son of God.
I quoted it from your own citation.... :facepalm:
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
No, the text specifically states that the wedding garment is charity, not Baptism. BoD also removes original and actual sin, justifies a man, and makes him an adopted son of God.
I quoted it from your own citation.... :facepalm:
Your last sentence was not from the citation.
-
To the OP,
I'm sorry to hijack your thread and will try to limit myself.
JoeZ
No need to apologize, I am very much enjoying Ambrose's replies to your questions. I have no doubt whatsoever you are receiving the very best from him.
-
The latest Eleison Comment unknowingly highlights exactly the point that Ladislaus is stressing in his thread, "that traditionalist BODers fail to see how religious indifferentism, the condemned notion that people can be saved in any religion, comes directly from pre Vatican II theology. That there is nothing heretical in Vatican II that BOD adherents already do not believe in anyway. From the 16 docuмents of Vatican II (only 2 which are entitled "dogmatic") I cannot find a single heretical statement that the BOD believers are not holding themselves anyway. I still don't know why they reject Vatican II and then proceed to adhere to the same heresies".
Snippet from the latest "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLI - 351 5th April 2014
CANONISATIONS UNREAL
The “canonisation”of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II, is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been (objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds canonisations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But it need not do so.
In August of last year these “Comments” stated the fact that Newchurch “canonisations” are such a different reality from pre-Conciliar canonisations that no Catholic need believe that the post-conciliar canonisations are infallible. I was not wrong, but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.
The Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
True canonisations are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody used to get uncanonised), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a model. As such, canonisations used to fulfil the four conditions of infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life, a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonisation ?
The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns out that the person I canonised did not have all the qualities required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonising” Pope’s “declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party to celebrate.
If one thinks about it, this explanation of the Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch, Newcanonisations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists proud of making everything new ?
Kyrie eleison.
truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science............
For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
The Trad BODers deny the very words of the Athanasian Creed (a credo), the unanimous opinion of the Fathers of the Church, the teaching of all the doctors and saints, and the dogmatically defined words of the Council of Florence. In every word, Bp. Williamson is describing the exact action of the trad BODers ALL of who end up believing that someone can be saved who has no explcit desire to be baptized, martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trintiy and the Incarnation (Christ), and not a one BODer condemns the notion.
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. They are denying clear dogma.
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout 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.)
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
So says one of the chief sacrament despisers.
To despise the sacraments, is to despise Catholic doctrine on the Sacraments. That is what the Feeneyites and followers of the Dimonds do.
Your double talking would make any modernist envious.
It is the Cushingites like yourself who preach that there is salvation without any sacrament at all via a BOD, thereby rendering the sacraments as useless and unnecessary who are the sacrament despisers.
We are taught to suppose you and all BODers despise the sacraments because that is what the catechism of Trent teaches! "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it.
That is why in truth, you despise the necessity of the sacraments while you also despise those courageous champions of the faith like Fr. Feeney, who defend their necessity - which is why you and all BODers who preach salvation without any sacrament at all, in truth, are sacrament despisers.
-
My heresy?
I quote infallible teachings - if you had any sense at all, you'd explicitly call the popes and councils who taught the truth heretics too rather than only imply they are heretics for teaching the dogma.
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.
So says one of the chief sacrament despisers.
To despise the sacraments, is to despise Catholic doctrine on the Sacraments. That is what the Feeneyites and followers of the Dimonds do.
Your double talking would make any modernist envious.
It is the Cushingites like yourself who preach that there is salvation without any sacrament at all via a BOD, thereby rendering the sacraments as useless and unnecessary who are the sacrament despisers.
We are taught to suppose you and all BODers despise the sacraments because that is what the catechism of Trent teaches! "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it.
That is why in truth, you despise the necessity of the sacraments while you also despise those courageous champions of the faith like Fr. Feeney, who defend their necessity - which is why you and all BODers who preach salvation without any sacrament at all, in truth, are sacrament despisers.
As I said, to defend the sacraments is to defend Church teaching on the sacraments. To attack Church teaching on the sacraments is to attack the sacraments.
Nice try in linking me to +Richard Cushing, but again you are wrong. I accept the teaching of the Holy Office as presented to +Cushing. If you were honest you would admit that your problem is not with +Cushing, but with the explanation given by the Holy Office approved by Pope Pius XII.
This is where the fork in the road is between you and I. I obey the Pope, and I know that Pope Pius XII through his Holy Office has authoritatively taught Catholics what they must believe. The Holy Office specifically taught that the error of the SBC, at least those at the time was their rejection of implicit Baptism of Desire.
It seems to me that the Feeneyites have evolved over time to reject all BoD, both explicit and implicit, so if the Holy Office was functioning today, more authoritative correction would be given.
-
Then go ahead and try to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
You cannot because you despise them.
No one can honestly defend that which they despise.
When you discovered that you could not defend the necessity of the sacraments, that should have been your clue that there was and is something inherently wrong with your erroneous beliefs and that all the double talking in the world will not remedy it, it only makes it worse.
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
No, the text specifically states that the wedding garment is charity, not Baptism. BoD also removes original and actual sin, justifies a man, and makes him an adopted son of God.
I quoted it from your own citation.... :facepalm:
Your last sentence was not from the citation.
Yes, if you're following the conversation here, that was something I observed and can be deduced from your citation.
Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
Sinners void of the grace of God go to hell. The unbaptized are devoid of the grace of God. Do you contest this?
-
Then go ahead and try to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
You cannot because you despise them.
No one can honestly defend that which they despise.
When you discovered that you could not defend the necessity of the sacraments, that should have been your clue that there was and is something inherently wrong with your erroneous beliefs and that all the double talking in the world will not remedy it, it only makes it worse.
I have defended the Church teaching, but you will not hear it.
-
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 22 1-14
[1] And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: [2] The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. [3] And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. [4] Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my calves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. [5] But they neglected, and went their own ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise.
[6] And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. [7] But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. [8] Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. [10] And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
[11] And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. [13] Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
The wedding garment is baptism...
From Haydock's Catholic Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 22, v 11-12,
Ver. 11. Wedding garment, which Calvin erroneously understands of faith, for he came by faith to the nuptials. St. Augustine says it is the honour and glory of the spouse, which each one should seek, and not his own; and he shews this, in a sermon on the marriage feast, to be charity. This is the sentiment of the ancients, of St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and others. What St. Chrysostom expounds it, viz. an immaculate life, or a life shining with virtues, and free from the filth of sin, is nearly the same; for charity cannot exist without a good life, nor the purity of a good life, without charity. In his 70th homily on St. Matthew, he says that the garment of life is our works; and this is here mentioned, that none might presume, (like Calvin and his followers) that faith alone was sufficient for salvation. When, therefore we are called by the grace of God, we are clothed with a white garment, to preserve which from every stain, from every grievous sin, depends upon the diligence (the watching and praying) of every individual. (St. John Chrysostom) --- It was the custom then, as it still is in every civilized nation, not to appear at a marriage feast, or at a dinner of ceremony, except in the very best attire. (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 12. Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
SOURCE (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id40.html)
The Ver. 12 is exactly what I explained. To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. The non-baptized dies that way.
No, the text specifically states that the wedding garment is charity, not Baptism. BoD also removes original and actual sin, justifies a man, and makes him an adopted son of God.
I quoted it from your own citation.... :facepalm:
Your last sentence was not from the citation.
Yes, if you're following the conversation here, that was something I observed and can be deduced from your citation.
Not having a wedding garment. By this one person, are represented all sinner void of the grace of God. (Witham) --- To enter with unclean garments, is to depart out of this life in the guilt of sin. For those are no less guilty of manifesting a contempt for the Deity, who presume to sit down in the filth of an unclean conscience, than those who neglected to answer the invitations of the Almighty. He is said to be silent, because having nothing to advance in his own defence, he remains self-condemned, and is hurried away to torments; the horrors of which words can never express. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx)
Sinners void of the grace of God go to hell. The unbaptized are devoid of the grace of God. Do you contest this?
The wedding garment is charity, not Baptism. Those with supernatural charity are in the state of grace.
As a general rule, no I do not contest what you wrote about the unbaptized, with the exception being those unbaptized who have Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood.
-
:sleep:
-
Then go ahead and try to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.
You cannot because you despise them.
No one can honestly defend that which they despise.
When you discovered that you could not defend the necessity of the sacraments, that should have been your clue that there was and is something inherently wrong with your erroneous beliefs and that all the double talking in the world will not remedy it, it only makes it worse.
I have defended the Church teaching, but you will not hear it.
You cannot get yourself to defend the necessity of the sacraments - but that's no big news flash since you believe they are not a necessity. But whats worse for you, is that you preach the Church teaches they are not a necessity either.
If it were left up to BODers like you to stand with the Church for the preservation of the sacraments, there would be no sacraments at all - the sacraments certainly would not have lasted more than a few years after the Apostles time if Our Lord left it up to folks like yourself to preserve, defend and promulgate them till the end of time - don't you agree?
You kinda remind me of the compromisers of the 60s and 70s who folded like a wet rag when the NO came in - if it were left up to them, there would be no "trads" or true faith today. The NO compromisers back then used similar non-excuses like you use.
-
I have defended the Church teaching, but you will not hear it.
These threads would be a little more tolerable if we just dispensed with posts like this.
I'm right.
No I am.
You're wrong.
No you are.
You are the heretic.
No you are.
We've all established what each side thinks of the other. Let's try to make posts of substance. That would also exclude the "You're an idiot." posts.
-
Here's what I concluded with my discussion with Ambrose:
There's no salvation outside the Church but when one is outside and desires to be inside he isn't really outside but inside even though he's outside.
Ambrose affirmed this is Church teaching.
Is there really anything of substance that can be said at this point? :confused1:
-
Here's what I concluded with my discussion with Ambrose:
There's no salvation outside the Church but when one is outside and desires to be inside he isn't really outside but inside even though he's outside.
Ambrose affirmed this is Church teaching.
Is there really anything of substance that can be said at this point? :confused1:
Well, yes and no. :facepalm:
-
Yes, this contradictory (nonsensical) logic is what comes of trying to reconcile Suprema Haec with Traditional Catholic teaching. Yes, there's no salvation outside the Church [...except when there is]. Yes, the Church is visible and not invisible, and no one can be part of the invisible Church only without also being part of the visible, but one can be invisibly part of the visible Church without being part of the invisible part of the Church. It just causes one's head to spin and really does turn the Church's Traditional teaching on EENS and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology into a joke.
-
And then you have the concept in Suprema Haec about no one can be saved who KNOWS the Church to be the True Church and yet REFUSES to enter it.
So, how many people are thereby (with this definition) excluded from the Church, maybe 4 or 5?
-
And then you have the concept in Suprema Haec about no one can be saved who KNOWS the Church to be the True Church and yet REFUSES to enter it.
So, how many people are thereby (with this definition) excluded from the Church, maybe 4 or 5?
If everyone knew that the Catholic Church is the ONLY true Church, established by God Himself as the only means of salvation for humankind, then it follows that virtually no one would refuse to enter it. :rolleyes: It does not pass the logic test. It is simply absurd what they say. Is there any human being out there that in the moment of death don't have the desire to be saved? I think not. That does not mean they will be saved. Christ Lord was explicitly clear about this. They cannot be saved, simply because they are not members of the Catholic Church, therefore not members of the Mystical Body of Christ, (Christ and the Church are one and only Christ goes to Heaven), therefore they are unable to enter Heaven on account of Original and actual sins.
BOD adherents believe there is a last minute shortcut to the Church Triumphant without actually being part of the Church militant. They think that one can be interiorly united to the Church and all sacraments can be taken invisibly. They concede that sure, it is "better" to a visible member of the Church, but you can also be an invisible member and be saved. That is to say that Baptism is optional which is infallibly condemned. Because of this, the clever modernists twisted the concept of BOD, so as not to remove completely the necessity of Baptism from the picture, but simply making it subjective, ambiguous, and ultimately invisible.
-
What about the millions that have been legally baptised & are going to Hell anyway? Why do we never hear about them--- they far outnumber any theoretical BoDers who indeed may only number 4 or 5 people in the entire world. :confused1:
BoD/BoB debate is a waste of time!!!
-
Not only that, roscoe, but once you subjectivize everything, the absurd conclusion follows that the Catholic Church is an impediment to salvation rather than a "help".
You might have a Protestant who just goes to church every few weeks, when he feels like it. Since he's not aware of any obligation to go to church, he commits no sin. But a Catholic misses Mass once and he's in a state of mortal sin. Protestants can divorce and remarry 20 times and not be in sin, but a Catholic enters a perpetual state of sin in doing it once. Lest the BoDers object, neither of these examples has to do with following the natural law.
-
Touche :kick-can: