Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: DecemRationis on July 11, 2022, 06:35:21 PM
-
I'm curious, did Father Feeney ever pen anything on his view of whether Trent, in the Council or in its Catechism, taught BOD?
I know he said in Bread of Life that a BOD could justify, but not save. I'd love to know if he expressed his opinion on Trent or its catechism and whether they taught BOD or not.
-
Is there some controversy over BOD? I saw it mentioned recently in a 1910 copy of Catholic Belief and Practice ( https://archive.org/details/catholicbeliefpr00mcga/page/24/mode/2up ), which reminded me that I thought I saw somewhere some discussion regarding it's validity, but I thought I was just getting it confused with EENS.
-
I recall a comment Father Feeney made in an interview that the modern versions of Trent had been edited.
I think this is going back to version published after 1850 or so.
-
I recall a comment Father Feeney made in an interview that the modern versions of Trent had been edited.
I think this is going back to version published after 1850 or so.
I suspect that he was speaking of the English translations which spun the import of the votum with the "except through" translation of "without".
He simply pointed out, correctly, that Trent was dealing with "justification" rather than "salvation", and there's solid theological precedent for that distinction. XavierSem, who was anti-Feeneyite, cited some theologians active around the time of Trent (or shortly thereafter) who made the same distinction, with one of them holding, for instance, that infidels could be justified but not saved. And the Catechism of Trent is also speaking of justification.
-
I suspect that he was speaking of the English translations which spun the import of the votum with the "except through" translation of "without".
Yes, that the Latin verse did not contain such meanings.
-
From Bread of Life:
When the Council of Trent was discussing the problem of justification, it had to remember that it was possible for
one to have been justified in the Old Testament as well as in the New, and that is why the Council allows the
distinction between the actual reception of Baptism and the eager willingness to receive it. A man in the Old
Testament waiting and wanting Baptism to be instituted, and a man in the New Testament waiting and wanting
Baptism to be administered could both be justified.
It was possible to be justified in the Old Testament, but not to be saved. When those who died in the state of
justification, in the Old Testament, went out of this life, they did not go to Heaven. They went to what is
technically called the "Limbo of the Just" (appropriately referred to as "Hell" in the Apostles' Creed), until the
visible Body of Jesus led them to salvation on the day of Ascension. This is how important visibility is to the
notion of salvation, whatever it may mean in the realm of justification.
It is sinful to call men to salvation by offering them "Baptism of Desire." If this so-called substitute for Baptism of
Water were in any sense usual, or common, or likely – or even practical – Jesus Christ would never have told
His Apostles to go forth and baptize with water for the regeneration of the world.
I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again
– he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith.
*******
*******
The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the
Church:
If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those
words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, "unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), into some
metaphor, let him be anathema.
Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is "Baptism of Desire," as
the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?
The same heretical theology that turned Baptism of Water into any dry desire one might have in the general
direction of Heaven, has also turned one Lord into one’s personal sincerity, and one Faith into the light of
invincible ignorance!
******
******
The Council of Trent, when treating of the Sacraments, anathematizes in most solemn canons those who say:
(1) that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation; (2) that one can even get into a state of
justification without at least a resolve to receive them; (3) that they are all of equal dignity and necessity; (4) that
their purpose is mere support of Faith.
You do not have Faith by saying you have Faith! You do not have love by saying you have love! You cannot love
God if you do not love Jesus. And you cannot love Jesus if you do not know Him through His great gifts, His
Sacraments. If you do not know Him, I defy you to make a perfect act of love. You are calling it perfect love, and
at the same time you are refusing that which poured out of the heart of Jesus: Blood and water. You are refusing
the Blood of the Eucharist and the water of Baptism. To call that love is a blasphemy!
-
From Bread of Life:
When the Council of Trent was discussing the problem of justification, it had to remember that it was possible for
one to have been justified in the Old Testament as well as in the New, and that is why the Council allows the
distinction between the actual reception of Baptism and the eager willingness to receive it. A man in the Old
Testament waiting and wanting Baptism to be instituted, and a man in the New Testament waiting and wanting
Baptism to be administered could both be justified.
It was possible to be justified in the Old Testament, but not to be saved. When those who died in the state of
justification, in the Old Testament, went out of this life, they did not go to Heaven. They went to what is
technically called the "Limbo of the Just" (appropriately referred to as "Hell" in the Apostles' Creed), until the
visible Body of Jesus led them to salvation on the day of Ascension. This is how important visibility is to the
notion of salvation, whatever it may mean in the realm of justification.
It is sinful to call men to salvation by offering them "Baptism of Desire." If this so-called substitute for Baptism of
Water were in any sense usual, or common, or likely – or even practical – Jesus Christ would never have told
His Apostles to go forth and baptize with water for the regeneration of the world.
I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again
– he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith.
*******
*******
The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the
Church:
If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those
words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, "unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), into some
metaphor, let him be anathema.
Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is "Baptism of Desire," as
the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?
The same heretical theology that turned Baptism of Water into any dry desire one might have in the general
direction of Heaven, has also turned one Lord into one’s personal sincerity, and one Faith into the light of
invincible ignorance!
******
******
The Council of Trent, when treating of the Sacraments, anathematizes in most solemn canons those who say:
(1) that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation; (2) that one can even get into a state of
justification without at least a resolve to receive them; (3) that they are all of equal dignity and necessity; (4) that
their purpose is mere support of Faith.
You do not have Faith by saying you have Faith! You do not have love by saying you have love! You cannot love
God if you do not love Jesus. And you cannot love Jesus if you do not know Him through His great gifts, His
Sacraments. If you do not know Him, I defy you to make a perfect act of love. You are calling it perfect love, and
at the same time you are refusing that which poured out of the heart of Jesus: Blood and water. You are refusing
the Blood of the Eucharist and the water of Baptism. To call that love is a blasphemy!
Stubborn,
Thank you for the quotes. Great food for thought.
DR
-
From Bread of Life:
When the Council of Trent was discussing the problem of justification, it had to remember that it was possible for
one to have been justified in the Old Testament as well as in the New, and that is why the Council allows the
distinction between the actual reception of Baptism and the eager willingness to receive it. A man in the Old
Testament waiting and wanting Baptism to be instituted, and a man in the New Testament waiting and wanting
Baptism to be administered could both be justified.
It was possible to be justified in the Old Testament, but not to be saved. When those who died in the state of
justification, in the Old Testament, went out of this life, they did not go to Heaven. They went to what is
technically called the "Limbo of the Just" (appropriately referred to as "Hell" in the Apostles' Creed), until the
visible Body of Jesus led them to salvation on the day of Ascension. This is how important visibility is to the
notion of salvation, whatever it may mean in the realm of justification.
This is interesting. So, Father Feeney is saying that those with BOD, like those before Christ, go neither to Heaven nor to Hell, but to Limbo? I don't think I've ever seen this explanation before. If so, he does not sound like he is denying BOD.
-
This is interesting. So, Father Feeney is saying that those with BOD, like those before Christ, go neither to Heaven nor to Hell, but to Limbo? I don't think I've ever seen this explanation before. If so, he does not sound like he is denying BOD.
Yes. I'm inferring that Fr. Feeney would read the Council of Trent in the famous passage of Session VI, Chapter ("or the desire thereof") to be referring to BOD, and that he would concede the Catechism of Trent as referring to it. Otherwise, he's accepting the concept from another source. Very interesting.
-
Yes. I'm inferring that Fr. Feeney would read the Council of Trent in the famous passage of Session VI, Chapter ("or the desire thereof") to be referring to BOD, and that he would concede the Catechism of Trent as referring to it. Otherwise, he's accepting the concept from another source. Very interesting.
I think justification vs salvation is an interesting distinction here.
-
This is interesting. So, Father Feeney is saying that those with BOD, like those before Christ, go neither to Heaven nor to Hell, but to Limbo? I don't think I've ever seen this explanation before. If so, he does not sound like he is denying BOD.
I'll have to look it up, but I saw a writeup from St. Benedict Center that cited, I think it was, the original Baltimore Catechism that had the same notion for infidels who for some reason might have died without actual sin, that they would go to a place "like Limbo." I'll try to find that. Dante put a couple of "noble infidels" (e.g. Saladin) in Limbo.
I've actually articulated the same type of position which makes sense of what otherwise would appear to be a contradiction in St. Ambrose.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/
-
I'll have to look it up, but I saw a writeup from St. Benedict Center that cited, I think it was, the original Baltimore Catechism that had the same notion for infidels who for some reason might have died without actual sin, that they would go to a place "like Limbo." I'll try to find that. Dante put a couple of "noble infidels" (e.g. Saladin) in Limbo.
I've actually articulated the same type of position which makes sense of what otherwise would appear to be a contradiction in St. Ambrose.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/
I thought I found that reference in the Catechism of Pius X, but when I went back to find it again, I couldn't! I know I saw it!
-
This is interesting. So, Father Feeney is saying that those with BOD, like those before Christ, go neither to Heaven nor to Hell, but to Limbo? I don't think I've ever seen this explanation before. If so, he does not sound like he is denying BOD.
That's not what he's saying. All he is saying is OT saints went to limbo, not to heaven or hell. Which is to say they died justified and went to Limbo, whereas the common belief is that the BOD person goes straight to heaven.
He says: The problem Trent had to deal with was - "A man in the Old Testament waiting and wanting Baptism to be instituted, and a man in the New Testament waiting and wanting Baptism to be administered could both be justified."
However, Trent cleared up whatever confusion there may have been when they stated; since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration.
Which is to say, per Trent, Fr. Feeney was simply mistaken when he said a NT man waiting for and wanting baptism could be justified.
-
That's not what he's saying. All he is saying is OT saints went to limbo, not to heaven or hell. Which is to say they died justified and went to Limbo, whereas the common belief is that the BOD person goes straight to heaven.
Isn't that what I said?
-
Isn't that what I said?
ya, I guess so lol
I deserve a :facepalm: for that.
I was more trying to point out that he was mistaken in that regard.
-
ya, I guess so lol
I deserve a :facepalm: for that.
I was more trying to point out that he was mistaken in that regard.
But was he? [Lad: I was wrong, it was the Baltimore Catechism, not the Pius X Catechism that I saw the reference]:
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven
-
I've actually articulated the same type of position which makes sense of what otherwise would appear to be a contradiction in St. Ambrose.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/
"Ladislausian Soteriology"???! So you propound a new theological idea and name it after yourself ... don't you see that this puts you in company that you, um, probably don't want to be in? Can't you just read the catechism book and accept it with a simple, childlike faith?
-
"Ladislausian Soteriology"???! So you propound a new theological idea and name it after yourself ... don't you see that this puts you in company that you, um, probably don't want to be in? Can't you just read the catechism book and accept it with a simple, childlike faith?
But are the catechisms really clear on this? One minute it seems to say that one can be saved via BOD, and other times it says that one cannot enter Heaven without baptism [and water baptism is implied...see my previous post].
I believe that one day [God willing], the Church will have to definitively teach BOD solemnly through its extraordinary magisterium, so the Church teaching is clear.
-
But was he? [Lad: I was wrong, it was the Baltimore Catechism, not the Pius X Catechism that I saw the reference]:
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven
Later on in the book, he says:
"Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of both means and precept for adults, who are not yet baptized.
Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo. Notice, they do not go to Hell. Also notice, they do not go to Heaven.
Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell. Notice they do not go either to Limbo or to Heaven."
And
"There is only one Baptism. And every baptized baby is a subject of our Holy Father the Pope. (When you go to Heaven, most of the Americans you meet will be under seven years of age!)"
-
But are the catechisms really clear on this? One minute it seems to say that one can be saved via BOD, and other times it says that one cannot enter Heaven without baptism [and water baptism is implied...see my previous post].
I believe that one day [God willing], the Church will have to definitively teach BOD solemnly through its extraordinary magisterium, so the Church teaching is clear.
What you quoted was talking about unbaptized infants and how they go to Limbo if they die. Baptism of Desire only applies to adults, since only adults (i.e., those with the use of reason) can desire anything.
-
But are the catechisms really clear on this? One minute it seems to say that one can be saved via BOD, and other times it says that one cannot enter Heaven without baptism [and water baptism is implied...see my previous post].
Yes, and Scripture (Eph 4:5) teaches there is only one baptism and the catechism teaches there are three.
-
Later on in the book, he says:
"Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of both means and precept for adults, who are not yet baptized.
Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo. Notice, they do not go to Hell. Also notice, they do not go to Heaven.
Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell. Notice they do not go either to Limbo or to Heaven."
And
"There is only one Baptism. And every baptized baby is a subject of our Holy Father the Pope. (When you go to Heaven, most of the Americans you meet will be under seven years of age!)"
He probably states this because the Balt Catechism states that unbaptized persons without actual sin go to Limbo. It's rare that an unbaptized adult would die without actual sin.
Having said that the BC also states that it is "common opinion" that they go to Limbo, but that is all. Father Feeney had a different opinion.
-
What you quoted was talking about unbaptized infants and how they go to Limbo if they die. Baptism of Desire only applies to adults, since only adults (i.e., those with the use of reason) can desire anything.
No, it also says "persons". This includes some folks [albeit rare] other than infants.
-
No, it also says "persons". This includes some folks [albeit rare] other than infants.
Probably they are implying the mentally retarded who grow up to physical maturity without ever achieving the use of reason.
-
Yes, and Scripture (Eph 4:5) teaches there is only one baptism and the catechism teaches there are three.
.
I don't know which catechism you read, but I did a quick search for the Baltimore Catechism and found this question (http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm). Is this what you mean?
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
It doesn't say "three baptisms". It says "three kinds of baptism". Note the word "baptism" in the singular.
-
.
I don't know which catechism you read, but I did a quick search for the Baltimore Catechism and found this question (http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm). Is this what you mean?
It doesn't say "three baptisms". It says "three kinds of baptism". Note the word "baptism" in the singular.
Since "one baptism" means "One kind of baptism", why doesn't "Three kinds of baptisms" mean three baptisms?
-
Probably they are implying the mentally retarded who grow up to physical maturity without ever achieving the use of reason.
Maybe. Bit that's not certain. That's why the Church will need to clarify due to confusion among good willed Catholics...not to mention the complete modernization/bastardization of it in recent decades.
-
"Ladislausian Soteriology"???! So you propound a new theological idea and name it after yourself ... don't you see that this puts you in company that you, um, probably don't want to be in? Can't you just read the catechism book and accept it with a simple, childlike faith?
It was meant as nothing more than a qualification that this view on soteriology differs somewhat from both Father Feeney's and that of the Dimond Brothers, or others. So, as opposed to "Feeneyite" and "Dimondite". I know that a lot of people lump them both into the same "Feeneyite" category, there there's a major difference between them. Father Feeney believes in a votum that can provide justification but not salvation. Dimonds reject that such can even be justified.
It's unique in that I posit that souls other than unbaptized infants could end up in Limbo. It's rooted in the Church Fathers and explains well a passage in St. Ambrose that others have written off as a contradiction (both St. Benedict Center and the Dimonds wrote it off and remarked that it would appear to be a contradiction).
Dimonds would hold that they all go to hell.
Father Feeney would hold that the justified would in fact be baptized somehow (even if miraculously and unknown to others), but he answers the hypothetical in case they weren't with "I don't know."
I'm filling in the "I don't know" with my opinion based on all the evidence I put in that thread.
-
Probably they are implying the mentally retarded who grow up to physical maturity without ever achieving the use of reason.
Probably, infants and those LIKE infants (aka those who are mentally retarded). I recall, however, that St. Benedict Center made more of this passage than that.
At one point St. Ambrose, in his (in)famous oration about Valentinian, posits that Valentinian may have been "washed" by his "piety and desire". Elsewhere, however, St. Ambrose states that not even a good catechumen can be saved if he dies before receiving the Sacrament. So this has puzzled many readers, written off as a contradiction or change of opinion.
But elsewhere in the Valentinian oration, he states that not even the martyrs are crowned even if they are "washed". So St. Ambrose is distinguishing between "washing" and "crowning" ... and these two reflect the two different effects of the Sacrament of Baptism -- 1) remission of sin and 2) reception of the Baptismal character. So St. Ambrose holds that unbaptized martyrs (he did seem to believe there were some, while Father Feeney does not think so) receive a washing, a remission of sin, but not a "crowning". That "crowning" (referred to by other Fathers as glory, and as making one fit for the "kingdom"). So this too is consistent with a distinction between justification (remission of sin) and salvation (ability to enter the beatific vision, i.e. enter the Kingdom). Pope St. Siricius dogmatically taught that NO ONE can enter the Kingdom without the Sacrament even if they desired to receive it.
There were theologians at the time of Trent who made the same distinction, holding, for instance, that infidels could be justified but not saved. So the missing piece is, what happens in the next life to those who have been justified but not saved?
-
The only possibility for BOD or BOB I see is just as a notion of the justification of souls who have already received baptism. A baptized Catholic in a state of sin shedding his blood for Christ would constitute a "Baptism of blood" as the act itself removes all sin and they go straight to heaven. With the "baptism of desire" being basically an act of perfect contrition.
It's as was already pointed out, there is only one baptism per the teaching of Scripture, as well as four Councils; not three as some try to stretch BOD and BOB into two baptisms in their own right, when they are just accidents of the justification already received by the baptized. If you aren't baptized by water and the Holy Ghost (John 3:5), you aren't a member of the Body, and therefore, will not be saved.
So this idea of Fr. Feeney of the unbaptized being justified but unable to enter heaven is plausible, but also is not really different than the "Dimondite" thesis that all unbaptized go to hell since Limbo is a part of hell minus the torment of fire.
-
The only possibility for BOD or BOB I see is just as a notion of the justification of souls who have already received baptism. A baptized Catholic in a state of sin shedding his blood for Christ would constitute a "Baptism of blood" as the act itself removes all sin and they go straight to heaven. With the "baptism of desire" being basically an act of perfect contrition.
It's as was already pointed out, there is only one baptism per the teaching of Scripture, as well as four Councils; not three as some try to stretch BOD and BOB into two baptisms in their own right, when they are just accidents of the justification already received by the baptized. If you aren't baptized by water and the Holy Ghost (John 3:5), you aren't a member of the Body, and therefore, will not be saved.
So this idea of Fr. Feeney of the unbaptized being justified but unable to enter heaven is plausible, but also is not really different than the "Dimondite" thesis that all unbaptized go to hell since Limbo is a part of hell minus the torment of fire.
It's a pious belief held by many that when someone makes religious vows, they receive a second baptism. It could be the same for martyrs. Yes, as you say, that would fall under perfect contrition, as defined explicitly at Trent. BOD has never been defined and never will be. The Holy Ghost protected the Church from doing that.
-
Indeed, there's one reference in the Church Fathers to a "Baptism of Blood" ... for a priest (who was already baptized), so it's not always clear what is meant. Again, the looser use of "baptism" refers to the one effect of Baptism, the remission of sins. But it's clear that "Baptism of Blood" nor "Baptism of Water" does not confer the Sacramental character, or effect the "crowning" that would enable one to enter the Kingdom. That distinction between the two effects of Baptism is very clear in the Church Fathers.
Here's Pope St. Siricius (with my translation):
Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.
So while we say that the reverence for Easter [my comment: when Baptisms were normally done] should not be diminished in any way, so it is our will that, in the case of infants who can not yet speak on account of their age, or in the case of those would have any kind of urgent need for the waters of Baptism, that they be given succor with all haste, lest it endanger our souls, were each and every one leaving this world to forfeit both the kingdom and life by denying the Saving Font to those desiring it.
So he's teaching here that "each and every one" who departs from this life desiring the saving font would forfeit the Kingdom and life (a Latin rhetorical expression meaning "the life of the Kingdom") if he doesn't receive the Sacrament before leaving this life.
-
So, people claim that Catholics MUST believe in BoD. OK. Well, what must I believe about it? Apart from the fact that the expression "Baptism of Desire" appears absolutely nowhere in the Catholic Magisterium, there appears to be a different understanding or version of "BoD" for each person that believes in it. Is it just for catechumens? Does it "work" for infidels? I've even heard some apply the term to validly-baptized Protestants. It's become codeword for "sincerity saves". Apart from a passing mention of a phrase votum in Trent, something without which justification cannot take place, the closest thing comes from a letter of Pope Innocent II/III (can't remember which) to a bishop in France. In it he said he was relying on the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose" (mistakenly IMO) to believe that an unbaptized priest (whatever that means) went straight to Heaven "without delay". St. Alphonsus used this letter to assert that BoD was de fide. That was before VI had defined the notes of infallibility. This was clearly a pope opining about a matter and sending a letter to some bishop, and was in no way teaching the Universal Church with HIS authority (but was relying on his understanding of Augustine and Ambrose). In any case, in a very similar letter to a bishop by Innocent III (I believe ... I get II and II confused sometimes from memory), that pope opined that the consecration at Mass was valid if the priest only THOUGHT the words of consecration. St. Thomas rightly took him to task over that. But, getting to my point, St. Alphonsus held the letter about the "unbaptized priest" to have dogmatic authority -- and yet CONTRADICTED the pope. St. Alphonsus claimed that with BoD (unlike BoB), temporal punishment remains in the next life. But that Pope Innocent letter stated that such a one would go to Heaven immediately and without delay. So, was St. Alphonsus a heretic?
BoD is fraught with uncertainty, lack of clarity, and a variety of interpretations. That is prima facie evidence that it's not de fide or even really TAUGHT as such. In order to believe something, you have to know what you're required to believe about it.
BoD is NOT something that has been revealed and therefore not even definable as Catholic dogma. More Church Fathers rejected the notion explicitly than who tentatively and temporarily opined in its favor. So there's no dogmatic consensus among the Church Fathers. Nor has anyone every made an argument to prove that BoD necessarily follows from other revealed truth. Without either one of those conditions, it's clear that BoD is not revealed and therefore cannot become de fide.
It's clearly nothing more than a piece of theological speculation that the Church has permitted. And, in and of itself, if applied to, say, a catechumen who has all the other proper dispositions to receive the Sacrament, it does no harm to Catholic ecclesiology or soteriology. Where it becomes a real problem is where it gets extended even to infidels. There's no evidence that any top tier Catholic source (pope, Doctor, or saint) ever believed that BoD could apply except to the case of a catechumen. Holy Office rejected the notion that lack of belief in at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. St. Robert ONLY applied it to catechumens, asking "Whether catechumens who [died before receiving the Sacrament] could be saved." Pope Innocent was talking about a "priest" who had not been baptized (again, not sure how that's possible).
Backing for BoD is incredibly weak, and 99% of its proponents don't care about the isolated case of a catechumen who may have died before Baptism. What they care about is using it as a weapon to undermine EENS and to use it as the mechanism by which non-Catholics (even infidels) can be saved.
-
It's clearly nothing more than a piece of theological speculation that the Church has permitted. And, in and of itself, if applied to, say, a catechumen who has all the other proper dispositions to receive the Sacrament, it does no harm to Catholic ecclesiology or soteriology. Where it becomes a real problem is where it gets extended even to infidels. There's no evidence that any top tier Catholic source (pope, Doctor, or saint) ever believed that BoD could apply except to the case of a catechumen. Holy Office rejected the notion that lack of belief in at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. St. Robert ONLY applied it to catechumens, asking "Whether catechumens who [died before receiving the Sacrament] could be saved." Pope Innocent was talking about a "priest" who had not been baptized (again, not sure how that's possible).
Backing for BoD is incredibly weak, and 99% of its proponents don't care about the isolated case of a catechumen who may have died before Baptism. What they care about is using it as a weapon to undermine EENS and to use it as the mechanism by which non-Catholics (even infidels) can be saved.
I believe in BOD only insofar as it is just another term for an act of perfect contrition, as I said, which is something only the baptized can do for justification.
This idea that you can receive the grace of a Sacrament without the material aspect of the Sacrament completely undermines sacramental theology. And reduces it to something more akin to Protestant theology where one can receive justification by faith alone. If I can be "baptized" through a desire for it, even if I'm an infidel, then what purpose is there for Our Lord and His Church clearly defining its matter as water and its form as "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"? Further, does not the validity of the Sacrament itself require that the recipient have a desire for it in the first place? The words of the Council of Trent very clearly state this, even though many misunderstand that the proposition of "or" (aut) means "and" in this particular instance.
If "desire" is all that is required, then one could effectively baptize themselves, which is ridiculous and not supported by any Catholic teaching or proof of Scripture.
And even for the extremely limited case of the catechumen, there's nothing to say such speculation is at all the reality. As God clearly permitted that catechumen's death prior to baptism, preventing them from receiving the Kingdom, for reasons known only to Him (lack of faith? Abuse of graces? Mercy due to future sins?). As the Church has also clearly defined that catechumens are not members of the Body until they are baptized. So basing one's belief on such theological speculation is reckless and dangerous to the Faith, as we clearly see today with the semi-Pelagian "invincible ignorance" heresy.
-
Yes, the extension of BoD to infidels is nothing short of Pelagianism and completely guts the teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments and how they work. Even when applied to catechumens, it's a bit of a stretch, which is why I don't believe in the commonly-held notion of BoD even in that case. And I have a big problem with reducing the character of Baptism to relative insignificance. With BoD theory, it's reduced to a Sacramental non-repeatability marker, or a badge of some kind that some people in Heaven have and others don't. I'd be more amenable with a theory of BoD that held that the souls also received the Sacramental character (even if in extraordinary manner). But no BoD proponent holds that, and the result is the reduction of the Sacramental character to meaninglessness or triviality.
-
So, people claim that Catholics MUST believe in BoD. OK. Well, what must I believe about it?
Lad,
Baptism of desire is a shorthand, a mere phrase for a concept taught by the Magisterium since Trent at least for sure (so I say it's OUM), what appears in the Council of Trent and in the Catechism of Trent, and probably every catechism since then (English, Irish, American, Italian, etc.) - although you, against the moral unanimity and consensus of every pope, bishop and theologian since Trent, reject the teaching and deny it's in the Council.
Here's the concept or teaching, which Msgr. Fenton says is "the revealed teaching" - it's this which you must believe per Fenton as a teaching of the OUM (and arguably - I say that for your sake - more solemnly taught at the Council of Trent - although only you and other Feeneyites argue it):
The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu)мenism/members.htm
Tell me if I am mistaken, but you reject the concept and say one must be in the Church in re and receive the sacrament of baptism to be saved?
-
Lad,
Baptism of desire is a shorthand, a mere phrase for a concept taught by the Magisterium since Trent at least for sure (so I say it's OUM), what appears in the Council of Trent and in the Catechism of Trent, and probably every catechism since then (English, Irish, American, Italian, etc.) - although you, against the moral unanimity and consensus of every pope, bishop and theologian since Trent, reject the teaching and deny it's in the Council.
The Council of Trent mentions justification, not salvation.
Also, you seem to be completely ignoring any contradictions in/between catechisms mentioned right in this thread. Why?
-
What I don't fully understand is how after all this time, faithful Catholic people are able to convince themselves that Trent left a loop hole, or was not clear, or could contradict Scripture, or heaven help us, taught a BOD.
On Justification, Trent clearly states that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. What else needs to be said? And if in the future a council defines it again, what words would they use to clarify that which is already clear?
-
Baptism of desire is a shorthand, a mere phrase for a concept taught by the Magisterium since Trent at least for sure (so I say it's OUM), what appears in the Council of Trent and in the Catechism of Trent, and probably every catechism since then (English, Irish, American, Italian, etc.) - although you, against the moral unanimity and consensus of every pope, bishop and theologian since Trent, reject the teaching and deny it's in the Council.
Nonsense. In the Magisterium, there's a reference in Trent to the votum for Baptism being required, being necessary for justification, with lack of clarity about whether it suffices for justification. "Cannot happen without" refers to a necessary condition, but Trent did not clarify whether it's sufficient. And no indication about whether it suffices for salvation ... and those two terms are clearly distinguished by theologians active around the time of Trent (and even has its roots in Sacred Scripture, St. Paul).
Catechism of Trent does not teach "BoD" either. It simply states that Baptism may be deferred in adults (in favor of their being properly prepared) because there isn't the same dangers for them as for instants on account of their desire/intention to receive Baptism. This does NOT state that if an adult were to die before Baptism, that intention would suffice for their salvation. That is totally read into the Catechism by the BoDers.
That's blatant lie that there's "moral unanimity and consensus of every pope." You can literally count on one hand where the subject is raised by any Pope. Every pope, my posterior.
And this is rich, coming from you. Every pope, bishop, and theologian for the past 60 years has upheld and supported the teachings of Vatican II and have upheld the acceptability of the NOM.
-
You still fail to cite where the Magisterium defines what must be believed about BoD, other than that there's this votum somehow related to justification. Then you hypocritically cite Fenton, who upheld the infallible safety of the Magisterium, as an authority. Regardless all he's saying is that the Church's necessity for salvation is revealed (whether in re or in voto). This means that you must hold that it's least necessary in voto, not that it must be believed that in voto belonging to the Church suffices for salvation. So you twist the meaning of the quote. Nor does the quote have anything directly to do with Baptism, but with the Church.
I believe that some of the criteria for membership in the Church can be achieved in voto. So, for instance, one does not lose membership in the Church for failing to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff during, say, a time of sede vacante, or if one has been unjustly excommunicated. I also believe that someone can belong to the Church in voto in the sense that if you have someone converted by a missionary who believes in the basic mysteries of the faith and who is baptized, even if he had not gotten to explicitly believing in the Church and submitting to the Church's teaching authority, that intention could be there in voto.
That some of the effects of Baptism can be had in voto, I agree. That all of the effects of Baptism can be had in voto, I deny. In fact, EVERYBODY denies that the character of Baptism can be had in voto. And MEMBERSHIP in the Church is not achieved without the Sacrament.
So this reduces to a discussion of what are the ramifications of not having the Sacramental character and not having membership in the Church.
-
Regarding desire mentioned in the Council of Trent, the book, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent , is the actual Council of Trent - not a catechism based on it - but the actual written decrees, the actual record.
- Original text with English translation by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., from Refuge of Sinners Publishing at www.JoyfulCatholic.com
It explains that "baptism of desire" takes effect at the pouring of the water - at the sacrament itself.
Priest: "N., do you wish to be baptized?"
N.: "I do" (or the Godparents for an infant)
- the catechumen has to indicate the will or wish to be baptized, then the sacrament's form and matter follow.
-
What I don't fully understand is how after all this time, faithful Catholic people are able to convince themselves that Trent left a loop hole, or was not clear, or could contradict Scripture, or heaven help us, taught a BOD.
On Justification, Trent clearly states that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. What else needs to be said? And if in the future a council defines it again, what words would they use to clarify that which is already clear?
Stubborn, I could be wrong about justification. It seemed to me that the usual quote used to support BOD mentions the word justification, not salvation. That was what I was referring to in my post above.
Where does Trent say justification can not be effected without the Sacrament? Does it say justification or does it say Baptism is necessary for Salvation? There is a distinction between those two things, is there not?
-
Stubborn, I could be wrong about justification. It seemed to me that the usual quote used to support BOD mentions the word justification, not salvation. That was what I was referring to in my post above.
Where does Trent say justification can not be effected without the Sacrament? Does it say justification or does it say Baptism is necessary for Salvation? There is a distinction between those two things, is there not?
Session 6, (Decree on Justification)
Chapter 4
"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 [to justification], 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."
Then in the 7th session, (On the Sacraments in general) Trent anathematizes whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation....
Canon 4
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary
unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof,
men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the
sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Also 7th session, (On the Sacrament of Baptism)
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for
baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our
Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him
be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto
salvation; let him be anathema.
-
Session 6, (Decree on Justification)
Chapter 4
"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 [to justification], 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."
Then in the 7th session, (On the Sacraments in general) Trent anathematizes whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation....
Canon 4
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary
unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof,
men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the
sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Also 7th session, (On the Sacrament of Baptism)
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for
baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our
Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him
be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto
salvation; let him be anathema.
The only quote here that speaks of justification rather than salvation is the first one, and it mentions "or desire thereof". So....that is consistent with the usual quote provided to support BOD. There is no contradiction. Both say "desire" for the laver of regeneration/the Sacrament can effect justification....but it does not say it effects salvation.
-
Nonsense. In the Magisterium, there's a reference in Trent to the votum for Baptism being required, being necessary for justification, with lack of clarity about whether it suffices for justification. "Cannot happen without" refers to a necessary condition, but Trent did not clarify whether it's sufficient. And no indication about whether it suffices for salvation ... and those two terms are clearly distinguished by theologians active around the time of Trent (and even has its roots in Sacred Scripture, St. Paul).
Yes, what is the difference? Is there a difference? I always thought there was, but now I'm doubting myself.
-
Then you hypocritically cite Fenton, who upheld the infallible safety of the Magisterium, as an authority. Regardless all he's saying is that the Church's necessity for salvation is revealed (whether in re or in voto). This means that you must hold that it's least necessary in voto, not that it must be believed that in voto belonging to the Church suffices for salvation. So you twist the meaning of the quote. Nor does the quote have anything directly to do with Baptism, but with the Church.
Really? That's your spin. He says entrance into the Church in re or by votum is necessary. Why would he talk about an entrance by votum if entrance in re is necessary?
The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu)мenism/members.htm
And the same or only way to enter the Church just turns out to be in re or by votum, just like baptism - what a coincidence, eh? Hey, you of all people should know that baptism is necessary for entering the necessary Church. So to say that this isn't about baptism but about the Church's necessity is a joke.
I'll deal with your "hypocrisy" for quoting Fenton garbage in a bit.
DR
-
The only quote here that speaks of justification rather than salvation is the first one, and it mentions "or desire thereof". So....that is consistent with the usual quote provided to support BOD. There is no contradiction. Both say "desire" for the laver of regeneration/the Sacrament can effect justification....but it does not say it effects salvation.
It starts by saying the sacraments are necessary for salvation, a BOD is not a sacrament, so a BOD on it's own is useless. Right from the start of that canon, Trent answers the question for all who think a BOD on it's own is salvific, it is not.
And yes, they both say "or desire thereof" - But the seventh session is talking about the sacrament of Holy Communion for example, (Spiritual communion) or Penance (Perfect Contrition) or whatever because there, they are talking about all of the sacraments.
The decree on justification in the 4th session is speaking strictly of only of the sacrament of baptism. The two "or desire thereof's" are used in different teachings and have two completely different meanings....neither of which teach a BOD.
In saying that justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration" - Trent could have stopped right there since on their own, these words admit that there is no justification without the sacrament. So stopping right there, no sacrament= no justification / no justification = no salvation. So really, nothing more needs to be said in that regard.
But, seemingly to directly condemn a baptism of desire, they added the words; "or the desire thereof." Justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof." Trent does not say that "justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof.
They of course then end by confirming the necessity of the sacrament with the Scripture; "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
The other thing to note, is that by saying "If anyone saith....without them, or without the desire thereof,
men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification....let him be anathema." This is not teaching that a desire will guarantee the grace of justification, only that justification will not be obtained without it.
-
Then you hypocritically cite Fenton, who upheld the infallible safety of the Magisterium, as an authority.
I cited Fenton here for the proposition that an entrance into the Church via a votum was sufficient. You rely on Fenton on infallible saftey, but reject him on BOD. Citing him, an authority you otherwise rely on, against your position is hypocritical? How can you cite Fenton on infallible security as an authority and reject him on BOD without being a hypocrite yourself?
You disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre about BOD, but you've quoted him against R & R when they rely on him repeatedly. Are you a hypocrite as well?
And I've shown you, anyway, how Msgr. Fenton's "infallible safety" related to prudential judgments about things like the Church and state and labor relations, and that the Church could not be "substantially corrupt" or in error on such matters. He'd be shocked that you find the Church could be in error about something like BOD, pertaining to the faith.
-
Yes, what is the difference? Is there a difference? I always thought there was, but now I'm doubting myself.
Justification refers to being in a state of sanctifying grace, whereas salvation refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven (the Beatific Vision). In this life, we can only be in a state of justification, and it then requires a distinct grace of final perseverance to transition into the state of salvation.
So we speak of the Old Testament "just", where they were in a state of sanctifying grace and yet were not yet saved and had not entered Heaven.
Now, the Dimonds argue that justification is impossible without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Fr. Feeney's position is that it's possible, but doesn't suffice for final salvation, and they make an analogy between this state and that of the OT just or justified. He did not believe, as a practical matter, that God would allow anyone who died justified not to be saved, that He somehow, even if in a manner unknown to us, made sure that all His elect received the Sacrament of Baptism and thus would be saved. When asked the hypothetical of, if this were possible, what would happen to such a soul, and he responded I don't know. I hold that they would enter a place like Limbo if they also died without any debt or stain of actual sin (as would be the case with an unbaptized martyr) or else in a Limbo-like state with lesser degrees of suffering that Hell proper. But that's a side point.
BoDers hold that all those who die in a state of justification attain Heaven, even if they lack the Sacramental character. I hold that the character is essential for entering into the supernatural life of God, that it's the faculty that permits us to see God as He is (a capacity that we lack by nature), and also to be recognized God as His adopted sons (bearing as we would the character of His Son in our souls). I do not believe that the Beatific Vision is possible without the Sacramental character, which is essentially the "supernatural faculty" in our souls.
-
DR asserted that we must believe in "BoD" ... regardless of the fact that the Magisterium has never clarified what "BoD" means.
But Father Feeney does believe in a "BoD", a desire that could bring about the one effect of the Sacrament, a remission of sin and putting the soul into a state of justification. He simply does not believe that BoD can have the effect of allowing a soul to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the Beatific Vision.
I agree with that. So I guess I believe in "BoD" as well. I just don't believe the same thing about it that everyone assumes of BoD. And nowhere has the Magisterium clarified that I must believe that this "BoD" suffices to allow souls to enter Heaven.
Where has this opinion about "BoD" been condemned by the Magisterium?
So, I generally do not qualify it when I said that "I don't believe in BoD", whereas perhaps I should say "I believe in BoD" ... but my understanding of it differs from the popular perception of it.
Some say BoD is just for catechumens. Some say it can be work for infidels. Some (like Pope Innocent) say that it remits all sin and punishment due to sin, where as some (St. Alphonsus) say it doesn't. Some say it suffices for salvation. Father Feeney did not, and I do not.
-
DR asserted that we must believe in "BoD" ... regardless of the fact that the Magisterium has never clarified what "BoD" means.
But Father Feeney does believe in a "BoD", a desire that could bring about the one effect of the Sacrament, a remission of sin and putting the soul into a state of justification. He simply does not believe that BoD can have the effect of allowing a soul to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the Beatific Vision.
I agree with that. So I guess I believe in "BoD" as well. I just don't believe the same thing about it that everyone assumes of BoD. And nowhere has the Magisterium clarified that I must believe that this "BoD" suffices to allow souls to enter Heaven.
Where has this opinion about "BoD" been condemned by the Magisterium?
So, I generally do not qualify it when I said that "I don't believe in BoD", whereas perhaps I should say "I believe in BoD" ... but my understanding of it differs from the popular perception of it.
Same here. I would add that BoD cannot be vicariously willed for another person. I am hearing this nonsense more frequently amongst those who desire the baptism of miscarried or aborted infants.
-
Same here. I would add that BoD cannot be vicariously willed for another person. I am hearing this nonsense more frequently amongst those who desire the baptism of miscarried or aborted infants.
Yes, I have heard that one as well. That would somehow give it an ex opere operato effect to the votum vis-a-vis the infant. Now, the requisite intention to be baptized is in fact supplied for by the parents/godparents at the reception of Baptism, but that's completely different since it's the Sacrament that effects the justification, not the vicarious intention.
Cajetan floated this idea, but St. Pius V ordered it expunged from his commentary.
-
Justification refers to being in a state of sanctifying grace, whereas salvation refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven (the Beatific Vision). In this life, we can only be in a state of justification, and it then requires a distinct grace of final perseverance to transition into the state of salvation.
So we speak of the Old Testament "just", where they were in a state of sanctifying grace and yet were not yet saved and had not entered Heaven.
Now, the Dimonds argue that justification is impossible without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Fr. Feeney's position is that it's possible, but doesn't suffice for final salvation, and they make an analogy between this state and that of the OT just or justified. He did not believe, as a practical matter, that God would allow anyone who died justified not to be saved, that He somehow, even if in a manner unknown to us, made sure that all His elect received the Sacrament of Baptism and thus would be saved. When asked the hypothetical of, if this were possible, what would happen to such a soul, and he responded I don't know. I hold that they would enter a place like Limbo if they also died without any debt or stain of actual sin (as would be the case with an unbaptized martyr) or else in a Limbo-like state with lesser degrees of suffering that Hell proper. But that's a side point.
Given in that context, I suppose this is where I would place my position along with the Dimonds on justification. As the justification of the OT Patriarchs is wholly different than the justification Fr. Feeney proposes for the unbaptized after the Resurrection, as those under the Old Covenant were still able to attain justification by the merits of the OT sacrifices and rites which were made in the hope of the Redemption to come. So their sin offerings were accepted only insofar as they were united with Christ in the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross at the close of the Old Covenant.
This is not possible for the unbaptized because after the establishment of the Church and Sacraments, post-Resurrection, the only means of justification would be by those same Sacraments. They are the only way to be justified, as there is no other way that the unbaptized can receive the remission of actual sins without the laver of regeneration. And we all know that without God's grace, it is impossible for adults to be free from actual sin, so even if they died with a single sin on their soul they would still merit hellfire. Unlike unbaptized infants who cannot commit actual sin, and therefore lose the Beatific Vision, but do not merit hellfire.
So to say they would go to a Limbo not unlike that of the infants, is extremely unlikely.
-
Given in that context, I suppose this is where I would place my position along with the Dimonds on justification. As the justification of the OT Patriarchs is wholly different than the justification Fr. Feeney proposes for the unbaptized after the Resurrection, as those under the Old Covenant were still able to attain justification by the merits of the OT sacrifices and rites which were made in the hope of the Redemption to come. So their sin offerings were accepted only insofar as they were united with Christ in the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross at the close of the Old Covenant.
This is not possible for the unbaptized because after the establishment of the Church and Sacraments, post-Resurrection, the only means of justification would be by those same Sacraments. They are the only way to be justified, as there is no other way that the unbaptized can receive the remission of actual sins without the laver of regeneration. And we all know that without God's grace, it is impossible for adults to be free from actual sin, so even if they died with a single sin on their soul they would still merit hellfire. Unlike unbaptized infants who cannot commit actual sin, and therefore lose the Beatific Vision, but do not merit hellfire.
I think this point could be debated. St. Ambrose, as I mentioned, posited a washing without the crowning, for both unbaptized martyrs and also for those like Valentinian. But all these open questions serve again to demonstrate that no "Baptism of Desire" in the sense of it having the effect of sufficing for salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism has ever been taught by the Church.
-
I think this point could be debated. St. Ambrose, as I mentioned, posited a washing without the crowning, for both unbaptized martyrs and also for those like Valentinian. But all these open questions serve again to demonstrate that no "Baptism of Desire" in the sense of it having the effect of sufficing for salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism has ever been taught by the Church.
And therein lies the problem. There are no true shepherds these days (in the sense of teaching authority), so many are being led astray by opinions (no matter how well-informed) rather than the bedrock of Church teaching.
-
Given in that context, I suppose this is where I would place my position along with the Dimonds on justification. As the justification of the OT Patriarchs is wholly different than the justification Fr. Feeney proposes for the unbaptized after the Resurrection, as those under the Old Covenant were still able to attain justification by the merits of the OT sacrifices and rites which were made in the hope of the Redemption to come. So their sin offerings were accepted only insofar as they were united with Christ in the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross at the close of the Old Covenant.
This is not possible for the unbaptized because after the establishment of the Church and Sacraments, post-Resurrection, the only means of justification would be by those same Sacraments. They are the only way to be justified, as there is no other way that the unbaptized can receive the remission of actual sins without the laver of regeneration. And we all know that without God's grace, it is impossible for adults to be free from actual sin, so even if they died with a single sin on their soul they would still merit hellfire. Unlike unbaptized infants who cannot commit actual sin, and therefore lose the Beatific Vision, but do not merit hellfire.
So to say they would go to a Limbo not unlike that of the infants, is extremely unlikely.
I hear what you/the Dimonds are saying, but for the sake or argument, let's say there are those who "desire" baptism but for whatever reason it never happens before they die. Or the catechumen who is explicit about his/her desire, but doesn't quite make it to baptism.
It seems to me that those folks are in at least the same position of the "just" of the OT. It seems right that they should at least avoid Hell and go to a place where there is no suffering, like a Limbo. No Beatific Vision, but at least no suffering.
PS, Good to see you DL!
Lad, after reading many of your posts over the years, I always thought that you believed in BOD at some level which is one of the reasons why I thought the accusation that you were in contradiction was unfair at best.
-
Lad, after reading many of your posts over the years, I always thought that you believed in BOD at some level which is one of the reasons why I thought the accusation that you were in contradiction was unfair at best.
I asked him repeatedly, repeatedly, if I was correct in believing that he held the view that it was impossible to be saved without the sacrament of baptism, and he never denied that.
Again, if one dies justified, one is saved. You can make as many distinctions between justification and salvation as you want - obviously, you're not saved until you go to heaven, for example - but if you die in a state of justification, you will be saved.
-
Again, if one dies justified, one is saved....
...And since the promulgation of the Gospel you cannot die justified without the laver of regeneration. "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration..."
Or to put it another way, you will die unjustified without the laver of regeneration.
-
...And since the promulgation of the Gospel you cannot die justified without the laver of regeneration. "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration..."
Or to put it another way, you will die unjustified without the laver of regeneration.
Stubborn,
I've made the argument that the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" means - to distinguish justification under the New Covenant from the Old - that at least an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism was necessary now, which would differentiate justification under the New Covenant, since the sacrament of baptism wasn't available under the Old.
I know the argument. I was a "Feeneyite" for years.
-
I asked him repeatedly, repeatedly, if I was correct in believing that he held the view that it was impossible to be saved without the sacrament of baptism, and he never denied that.
Again, if one dies justified, one is saved. You can make as many distinctions between justification and salvation as you want - obviously, you're not saved until you go to heaven, for example - but if you die in a state of justification, you will be saved.
That's not accurate. Actually, without the receipt of the sacrament is the issue I addressed with Lad.
-
Stubborn,
I've made the argument that the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" means - to distinguish justification under the New Covenant from the Old - that at least an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism was necessary now, which would differentiate justification under the New Covenant, since the sacrament of baptism wasn't available under the Old.
I know the argument. I was a "Feeneyite" for years.
But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly. Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?
Just another ambiguity....
-
Stubborn,
I've made the argument that the "since the promulgation of the Gospel" means - to distinguish justification under the New Covenant from the Old - that at least an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism was necessary now, which would differentiate justification under the New Covenant, since the sacrament of baptism wasn't available under the Old.
I know the argument. I was a "Feeneyite" for years.
The thing is, "since the promulgation of the Gospel" means "from that point in time forward."
So it is from that point in time forward that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. Which is only to say that, prior to that point in time, justification could be effected without the sacrament.
Being as we are past that point, Trent is teaching that since then and till the end of time, justification cannot be effected without the sacrament.
Not sure how this is able to be argued lol
-
But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly. Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?
Just another ambiguity....
Yet again, and for my part I'll leave it unless some specific issue comes up, the "core" teaching remains the same: whether it's an explicit desire, or an implicit desire, both desires, and all catechisms, embrace and recognize the possibility of justification and salvation without the receipt of the sacrament. All of them.
That is, in my view, the OUM teaching.
-
The thing is, "since the promulgation of the Gospel" means "from that point in time forward."
So it is from that point in time forward that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. Which is only to say that, prior to that point in time, justification could be effected without the sacrament.
Being as we are past that point, Trent is teaching that since then and till the end of time, justification cannot be effected without the sacrament.
Not sure how this is able to be argued lol
Right. That's the "position." Better? :laugh1:
-
But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly. Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?
Just another ambiguity....
This is another thing - the catechisms are not the OUM. If they are the UOM, then why not use the NO Catechism?
-
Right. That's the "position." Better? :laugh1:
I don't get the joke. But that position is Trent's.
-
I hear what you/the Dimonds are saying, but for the sake or argument, let's say there are those who "desire" baptism but for whatever reason it never happens before they die. Or the catechumen who is explicit about his/her desire, but doesn't quite make it to baptism.
I'd say that's a possibility, and I think it's similar to what Ss. Thomas and Alphonsus believed about BOD (albeit, they said Purgatory and then onward to Heaven, rather than Limbo). But it remains in the gray area of theological speculation.
It seems to me that those folks are in at least the same position of the "just" of the OT. It seems right that they should at least avoid Hell and go to a place where there is no suffering, like a Limbo. No Beatific Vision, but at least no suffering.
PS, Good to see you DL!
And you're honestly not alone in that belief. If we can take Dante Alighieri for an example of the Medieval/Renaissance Catholic mindset, he himself set up a Limbo of the just for these types of people. The idea of it is completely appealing, but, I can't put my faith into it since there's so much speculation on what happens to these kinds of souls. And there's also the question of the efficacy of the OT rites and their merit towards the Redemptive Sacrifice of Christ versus the lack of such things among infidels. Again, the sin offerings made to God in the Old Covenant only had efficacy and merit because they were to be fulfilled in Christ later. Once the New Testament is established, the Sacraments are the only means to reach justification. If an infidel doesn't have the Sacraments, then no amount of good will and desire can justify them or remit their sins. Confusion and/or denial of this is precisely why an Arch-heretic like Pelagius came about, and why this error still persists to this day.
Again, it's a theological possibility, but hasn't been revealed or defined like the Limbo of the Infants. As for the catechumen argument, why they didn't make it to baptism is a mystery of God. He has His just reason as to why they didn't "make the cut," so to speak. As I said earlier:
And even for the extremely limited case of the catechumen, there's nothing to say such speculation is at all the reality. As God clearly permitted that catechumen's death prior to baptism, preventing them from receiving the Kingdom, for reasons known only to Him (lack of faith? Abuse of graces? Mercy due to future sins?). As the Church has also clearly defined that catechumens are not members of the Body until they are baptized.
-
I asked him repeatedly, repeatedly, if I was correct in believing that he held the view that it was impossible to be saved without the sacrament of baptism, and he never denied that.
Again, if one dies justified, one is saved. You can make as many distinctions between justification and salvation as you want - obviously, you're not saved until you go to heaven, for example - but if you die in a state of justification, you will be saved.
You were alleging contradiction based on a false dichotomy, where both the opposites were strawmen of my position.
My contention regarding the inerrancy of the Magisterium contradicts my contention that BoD is an error. [Assumed premise: BoD was taught by the Magisterium.]
I never said that I believed the Magisterium to be absolutely inerrant.
I just said that the Magisterium cannot become so corrupt that it's harmful to souls, certainly not to the point of requiring Catholics in conscience to sever communion with the Holy See and the hierarchy over it.
Then I stated that while I disagree with BoD, I do not characterize it as any kind of error (just a speculation with which i disagree) ... EXCEPT when it's articulated in its extreme Pelagian form that undermines EENS dogma. And the Church has absolutely never taught that latter expression of the amorphous "BoD".
With all that said, I do not concede your premise that the Magisterium has taught even the non-extreme form of BoD ... but that ventures off into a separate argument altogether which has been tangential to the main point of contention.
Now, while I do not hold the Magisterium to be absolutely inerrant, had the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire clearly and set out what must be believed about it, I would of course have immediately accepted that. I don't believe that an Ecuмenical Council can err at all, and Vatican II could not have taught error had it been legitimate. What I had in mind was something along the lines of that curious letter by Pope Innocent regarding the "unbaptized priest".
But I reject the assertion that Trent taught a "Baptism of Desire" in a way that includes the proposition that those who die without the Sacrament could be saved (enter the Kingdom and the Beatific Vision) without the Sacrament. But I will not digress into what we've already been discussing.
I see no contradiction anywhere.
What's strange though is that you started promoting the sedevacantists (who would agree with me in calling your position heretical) as if they were your allies in this contention, and started basically promoting their position that the Magisterium is inerrant, while at the same time believing yourself that it can be corrupted badly ... such as you assert of Vatican II, along with the New Mass. That seems dishonest. You were promoting a position that you yourself do not believe to convince me (or others) into believing it, so that your allegation of a contradiction could stand. :confused:
-
But, wait.....the catechisms state one can even desire it implicitly. Are we to believe that the OUM teaches explicit desire or at least implicit desire? Which is the true teaching?
Just another ambiguity....
Trent Catechism does not teach implicit BoD while some later catechisms do teach it. I would say implicit salvation is the one "ambiguity" that needs resolution more than anything, because with "implicit faith" I can accept Unitatis Redintegratio and simply become a conservative NO instead of sedeprivationist. I think the only conclusively heretical things in VII is the ecclesiology promulgated in this one docuмent.
-
I don't get the joke. But that position is Trent's.
Never mind, I get it now - but it is still clearly, Trent's teaching.
Since, per Trent, it is infallible that:
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration),
2) or the desire for the sacrament of baptism, and
3) since we are bound to accept this and Trent's inclusion of John 3:5 as it is written,
4) there is no other means for those unbaptized to obtain justification because Trent infallibly teaches that
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)
Why is it not clear that #2 condemns the idea of a BOD?
-
Never mind, I get it now - but it is still clearly, Trent's teaching.
Since, per Trent, it is infallible that:
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration),
2) or the desire for the sacrament of baptism, and
3) since we are bound to accept this and Trent's inclusion of John 3:5 as it is written,
4) there is no other means for those unbaptized to obtain justification because Trent infallibly teaches that
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)
Why is it not clear that #2 condemns the idea of a BOD?
It's crystal-clear. I don't get how people are dividing the sacrament of baptism from a desire for it just because the word "or" is used in an inclusive sense. We know that a forced baptism, against the desire of an individual, is invalid. So why would the desire in itself suffice without the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)?
It's illogical.
-
This is another thing - the catechisms are not the OUM. If they are the UOM, then why not use the NO Catechism?
Cathechisms are not, by and in themselves, the OUM. But they can express the OUM under certain conditions, and I think their discussion of BOD qualifies. I agree, for example, with this:
The old standard Baltimore Catechism…[taught] faith to Catholics of an entire nation…Others, like the Roman Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent have had worldwide popularity and use. The unanimous teaching of these catechisms can rightly be considered by the theologians as an indication of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church. The doctrine that is universally or unanimously proposed in these doctrinal books, in such a way that it is presented to practically all of the Catholics of the world as revealed truth, is certainly a verity taught and exposed infallibly in the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church.
The Concept of Sacred Theology, Rev. J.C. Fenton, 1941
"Why not the NO Catechism?" Why not when it expresses the OUM?
-
Never mind, I get it now - but it is still clearly, Trent's teaching.
Since, per Trent, it is infallible that:
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration),
2) or the desire for the sacrament of baptism, and
3) since we are bound to accept this and Trent's inclusion of John 3:5 as it is written,
4) there is no other means for those unbaptized to obtain justification because Trent infallibly teaches that
1) there is no justification without the the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)
Why is it not clear that #2 condemns the idea of a BOD?
Not clear on what you're saying there.
I'm not calling you a heretic or saying I do not think it permissible to take a "Feeneyite" view. As I said, I once held it. But I now think BOD to be an expression of the OUM. It's fine to me if we differ.
-
You were alleging contradiction based on a false dichotomy, where both the opposites were strawmen of my position.
My contention regarding the inerrancy of the Magisterium contradicts my contention that BoD is an error. [Assumed premise: BoD was taught by the Magisterium.]
I never said that I believed the Magisterium to be absolutely inerrant.
I just said that the Magisterium cannot become so corrupt that it's harmful to souls, certainly not to the point of requiring Catholics in conscience to sever communion with the Holy See and the hierarchy over it.
Then I stated that while I disagree with BoD, I do not characterize it as any kind of error (just a speculation with which i disagree) ... EXCEPT when it's articulated in its extreme Pelagian form that undermines EENS dogma. And the Church has absolutely never taught that latter expression of the amorphous "BoD".
With all that said, I do not concede your premise that the Magisterium has taught even the non-extreme form of BoD ... but that ventures off into a separate argument altogether which has been tangential to the main point of contention.
Now, while I do not hold the Magisterium to be absolutely inerrant, had the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire clearly and set out what must be believed about it, I would of course have immediately accepted that. I don't believe that an Ecuмenical Council can err at all, and Vatican II could not have taught error had it been legitimate. What I had in mind was something along the lines of that curious letter by Pope Innocent regarding the "unbaptized priest".
But I reject the assertion that Trent taught a "Baptism of Desire" in a way that includes the proposition that those who die without the Sacrament could be saved (enter the Kingdom and the Beatific Vision) without the Sacrament. But I will not digress into what we've already been discussing.
I see no contradiction anywhere.
What's strange though is that you started promoting the sedevacantists (who would agree with me in calling your position heretical) as if they were your allies in this contention, and started basically promoting their position that the Magisterium is inerrant, while at the same time believing yourself that it can be corrupted badly ... such as you assert of Vatican II, along with the New Mass. That seems dishonest. You were promoting a position that you yourself do not believe to convince me (or others) into believing it, so that your allegation of a contradiction could stand. :confused:
We've done done this dance about a dozen times in the last few days, and it's almost turning into a personal feud. If it's necessary, it's necessary, but it's not something I want to do. In about a dozen posts, probably more, I've made my position clear. I'm done with it for now.
But as to the last part. I addressed that already a bit, but for the last time: I didn't invoke them as "allies," or "promote" their position. They are your "allies," and they damn you (on BOD). They hold the same view of indefectibility, and they'd level your heretic charge back at you on BOD using the same criterion of indefectibility. That's the point of my mention of them.
Peace, bro? For now at least.
-
It's crystal-clear. I don't get how people are dividing the sacrament of baptism from a desire for it just because the word "or" is used in an inclusive sense. We know that a forced baptism, against the desire of an individual, is invalid. So why would the desire in itself suffice without the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)?
It's illogical.
On the surface, "cannot without the laver or the desire" is ambiguous.
I cannot write a letter without paper or a pen. We cannot have the wedding without the bride or the groom. In both these expressions, BOTH are in fact required. And the Latin there is no different in this regard.
I cannot write a note without a pen or a pencil. I can't buy anything at the store without cash or a debit card. In both these expressions, either one would suffice.
That's because the expression WITHOUT A OR B can either be understood as
CANNOT WITHOUT (A OR B) -- BoD meaning
or
CANNOT WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B -- non-BoD meaning
Unlike in math or computer programming there aren't any parentheses to guide us.
Now, in the two sets of samples above, the meaning was obvious to us. Why? Because we understood from the context which one was meant.
Now, Trent could have disambiguated the expression inline by using an expression like "or else" or "or at least" ... as it did for the Sacrament of Confession.
For Confession, Trent taught that the Confession was necessary for remission of grave sin (after a post-Baptismal fall) saltem in voto ("at least in desire") and later that sin can be remitted vel sacramento vel sacramenti voto ("either by the sacrament or by the intention [to receive the] sacrament"). Note that the use of vel in Latin means that the two are not mutually exclusive (vs. if they had used aut ... aut) ... since it's actually necessary to have the intention to receive the Sacrament also when actually receiving the Sacrament. This is absolutely clear. Trent could have used this same expression for Baptism if that's what it intended ... vel lavacro vel ejusdem voto or lavacro aut saltem ejusdem voto. This would have made it absolutely clear.
Trent simply used [sine] lavacro aut ejusdem voto. Now, normally, in a positively-worded epression, aut would tend to imply an exclusive or, "one OR the other (but not both)" but, as we have seen, that would be incorrect, since as with Confession, the votum is ALSO required with the Sacrament AND because when flipped around into the double-negative form of "cannot without A or B", it would simply be an emphatic way of saying that EITHER without A OR without B (if EITHER one is absent), i.e. that both do not have to be missing. So it goes back again to whether Trent means WITHOUT (A OR B) -- in which sense an exclusive OR would be theologically incorrect -- or WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B -- in which an exclusive OR would not be incorrect, since the OR isn't between A OR B, but rather between WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B.
So one piece of evidence in favor of the WITHOUT A OR WITHOUT B (non-BoD sense) is that the exclusive or aut when used in the expression (A OR B) as in WITHOUT (A OR B) would be theologically incorrect. Now, exclusivity is not ALWAYS indicated by the aut, so this is not conclusive.
So why would Trent use an ambiguous expression rather than an obviously clear expression as it did with Confession? Well as we saw, it's context or meaning that disambiguates otherwise-ambiguous grammar.
But what to me completely disambiguates the expression is the Scriptural "proof text" that follows this teaching.
... justification cannot happen without the Laver or the votum as it is written, "Unless one be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit, it is not possible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
Trent had just finished explaining that the Holy Spirit inspires all the dispositions for Baptism up to and including the votum to receveive the Sacrament. So there is an analogy being made, similar to the kind you'd see on an SAT test.
laver:votum::water:Holy Spirit -- So the laver corresponds to the "water" in the citation from Our Lord. That's precisely why the Fathers at Trent used this very descriptive word (which connotes water) rather than just, say, "the Sacrament," as they did for Confession. Then the votum would likewise correspond to the Holy Spirit, since the action of the Holy Spirit inspires the votum in the soul.
So to claim that this means the laver or else the votum would be to claim that the Fathers taught the absurdity that "Justification can happen with EITHER the water OR the votum, as the Lord taught that BOTH the water AND the Holy Spirit are necessary." So that Scriptural proof text that the Fathers offer for this teaching immediately disambiguates the expression into meaning that BOTH are required for justification.
Finally, the Fathers could simply have taught this in the positive form, that justification CAN happen with the Sacrament OR at least the votum for it. But they did not. Instead they taught that it CANNOT happen without these. This strongly implies that these are both necessary causes of justification, but not by themselves sufficient.
We find one final clue in the Canons. At one point the Fathers anathematize the proposition that the Sacrament can justify even when the recipient does not "will" to receive it, and this demonstrates that it is not possible to say that aut has the exclusive sense, where EITHER the Sacrament OR the DESIRE would suffice. To read "Laver or votum" that way would imply an anathematized proposition.
Now, votum is linguistically related to the word for "to will", so it means to will or to intend. So translating votum as "desire" is very misleading ... and IMO deliberately so. It waters down the meaning so that any kind of "emotional desire" would suffice. Even Catholic Encyclopedia states that "desire" is a totally inadequate term, and that votum encompasses all the necessary predispositions for Baptism.
votum is also the root word of our word "vow" and is also used to mean "vow" in Latin. That is much stronger than desire. When someone gets engaged, that person might "desire" to marry his prospective spouse, and has every intention to do so, but if he walks out seconds before pronouncing the marriage vows, the couple were never married. So the word "vow" is practically inseparable with actually carrying out the act itself. So, for Confession, if you just think, "I want to go to Confession." that's not quite the will or intention to go. It has to be more resolute, along the lines of "I'm going to Confession when the priest comes into town on Sunday." or the penitent calls the priest to schedule a Confession. That's why Trent adds the expression "in due time" to the "intention" to confess, since the votum does not require that the penitent run to the rectory and knock on the door at 3AM to wake the priest immediately.
But this votum has been deliberately watered down in translation to "desire". Latin does have a word for "desire", by the way. But if you translate votum as "firm resolution to receive the Sacrament of Baptism", it's much harder to ascribe salvation by votum to various infidels (Jєωs, pagans, etc.). What Jєω or infidel ever had a firm resolution or intention to receive the Sacrament of Baptism? So this very term "Baptism of Desire" is anathema and needs to be discarded. It also does imply the "three Baptisms" nonsense, which verbatim denies the Creed's reference to belief in "ONE Baptism". St. Robert Bellarmine very carefully stated that one received Baptism in voto, holding that this was simply a different MODE of receiving the one Baptism, so his in re vs. in voto. Not quite sure which of these would apply to "Baptism of Blood"? Oh, that's another problem with holding that Trent taught Baptism of Desire. Where's Baptism of Blood? If justification cannot happen without either the actual Sacrament of water or the Baptism of Desire, then what is Baptism of Blood? This teaching would positively rule out a Baptism of Blood as a distinct thing. It would have to reduce to one of the other two. So to hold "Three Baptisms" would be heretical based on this teaching from Trent ... if interpreted the BoD way. Baptism of Blood would likely just reduce to Baptism of Desire. So then St. Alphonsus' contention that BoB is distinct in that it has a "quasi ex opere operato" effect would have to be completely discarded. And, returning to St Robert Bellarmine, he limited Baptism in voto ... so BIV would be a more suitable expression than the noxious and heterodox BOD ... to catechumens. Catechumens belonged to the visible Church through their profession of Christian faith and would have the votum for Baptism in the concrete sense of "I'm signed up and scheduled to be baptized next Easter."
Yet another curious problem with BIV (among many) is the following. Some hold that BoD is only "in play" if the catechumen is cut off by death from the Sacrament. But why? Well, otherwise, the Sacrament becomes a mere formality for those catechumens who are already justified before the Sacrament. When approaching the Sacrament, the catechumen asks for the gift of faith. And the Sacrament remits Original Sin. But does it really if the Original Sin is already wiped out by prior justification in voto? Now, let's say the catechumen has entered a state of justification prior to actual reception of the Sacrament, so Original Sin is wiped out. But then the catechumen subsequently commits a mortal sin. Does the eventual Baptism work more like Confession then? Initial justification is defined by Trent as the spiritual "rebirth" and then "spiritual rebirth" is defined as completely wiping out all sin and all punishment due to sin. That creates some major problems for St. Alphonsus' [unproven] contention [aka speculation] that BoD (BiV) does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin. But then this catechumen would have experienced his rebirth prior to Baptism. Would he then experience a second "rebirth" with a subsequent initial justification?
BoD is so deeply fraught with difficulties that I don't see how it's even tenable as a workable theory, much less has it been defined by the Church.
But even with all this, IF that's what Trent intended (but expressed so sloppily when it could have made it extremely clear by following the exact same grammatical expression as with Confession), Trent would be saying that the votum suffices for justification but does not declare that it would suffice for entering the Kingdom of Heaven. We saw earlier how Pope St. Siricius taught that each and every one of those who desired to receive the Sacrament would forfeit Life in the Kingdom if they departed life without the actual Sacrament. St. Ambrose, cited as a proponent of "BoD" taught that these (along with the unbaptized martyrs) would be "washed" but now "crowned" (aka would not enter the Kingdom).
-
It is that complexity associated with BOD that proves the error. Trent spoke clearly insofar as the laver of regeneration or the desire for it were immediately contextualized by the reference to John 3:5, yet the BOD advocates will ignore this context to push their error. Or, as you've indicated, they will emphasize some opinion of two Church Fathers (Ss. Ambrose and Augustine) that could be construed in favor of BOD while ignoring 99% of the other Fathers who explicitly taught the necessity of water baptism.
-
It's crystal-clear. I don't get how people are dividing the sacrament of baptism from a desire for it just because the word "or" is used in an inclusive sense. We know that a forced baptism, against the desire of an individual, is invalid. So why would the desire in itself suffice without the sacrament of baptism (laver of regeneration)?
It's illogical.
Ok, I'm glad someone else is reading this teaching with the same understanding.
And that's what I am after, I'm trying to find out why or how others have a completely different understanding. As you say, it's illogical.
-
Cathechisms are not, by and in themselves, the OUM. But they can express the OUM under certain conditions, and I think their discussion of BOD qualifies. I agree, for example, with this:
"Why not the NO Catechism?" Why not when it expresses the OUM?
Yes, even the NO catechism can have magisterial teachings within it, but because they are not by and in themselves the OUM, they can also contain teachings contrary to OUM. The thing is, this is denied even when faced with contrary or conflicting OUM teachings.
-
Not clear on what you're saying there.
I'm not calling you a heretic or saying I do not think it permissible to take a "Feeneyite" view. As I said, I once held it. But I now think BOD to be an expression of the OUM. It's fine to me if we differ.
And I'm not calling you a heretic or anything either, all I am trying to find out is how one can read Trent's teaching and not have a clear understanding of it for what it teaches clearly.
And how is it that one cannot see the contradiction between Trent and the catechisms. Or does one see the contradiction, yet accept a BOD, or accept both anyway.
As DL stated, it's illogical.
-
It is that complexity associated with BOD that proves the error.
And the huge variation of interpretations regarding "BoD" proves that the Church never taught it. We can't believe in an amorphous concept. DR referred to the "core concept". If you define "core concept" as the greatest common denominator among all the permutations of BoD, what remains is the proposition that the Sacrament of Baptism is not in fact absolutely necessary for salvation ... in other words, heresy.
-
Another consideration regarding Trent is around the negative formula, "justification cannot happen without Baptism or the desire for it". Even if you read it the BoDer way, this falls short of actually teaching that justification CAN happen with the votum alone.
To say that ... you can't be justified without at least having the desire for it ... this just means that Catholics must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary AT LEAST in desire. ByzCat, not a Feeneyite, agreed with this assessment. To say that must believe something AT THE MINIMUM does not equate to positively teaching that votum suffices.
There's no Canon in Trent which says that you must believe that the votum alone suffices for justification. Trent states that if anyone believes that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation at least by desire, let him be anathema. All this says is that you're absolved of heresy if you hold to BoD. This leaves the question open and allows the BoD position, but it does not actively teach it.
Again, the phrase "justification cannot happen without" is very curious. This speaks to necessary but but not sufficient cause. In the case of Confession, Trent teaches ACTIVELY that sin can be remitted by the Sacrament and/or the intention (firm resolution) to receive it. Trent uses "at least" and an inclusive "either...or". But in the case of Baptism, Trent uses the passive voice and does not throw in these terms ... when it easily could have done both. So in the case of Confession, Trent teaches that perfect contrition along with at least the resolution to go to Confession does suffices for justification. In the case of Baptism, even if you read this the BoDer way, Trent teaches that it is necessary for justification ("cannot happen without") but falls short of teaching it suffices on its own.
-
And the huge variation of interpretations regarding "BoD" proves that the Church never taught it. We can't believe in an amorphous concept. DR referred to the "core concept". If you define "core concept" as the greatest common denominator among all the permutations of BoD, what remains is the proposition that the Sacrament of Baptism is not in fact absolutely necessary for salvation ... in other words, heresy.
Wow..I just posted something and it just never posted! Let's try it again:
Can I just say I love the math terms!? I love Math. It is so logical and universal.
I think the bolded is the critical point [and as you say the true "core concept"]. When my Jєωιѕн father died 5 years ago, I had traditional Catholics [not Novus Ordo] say to me, "Well, you never know. He may have died with BOD". Even then, in my grief, I thought how odd.
So, on a practical level, this means that a Catholic can never know whether a non-Catholic [known or not known] was saved or not. If that is the case, it calls into question, why the need for Sacramental Baptism in the first place?
I won't deny it completely because I see it in the later catechisms, but something is off.
-
Wow..I just posted something and it just never posted! Let's try it again:
Can I just say I love the math terms!? I love Math. It is so logical and universal.
I think the bolded is the critical point [and as you say the true "core concept"]. When my Jєωιѕн father died 5 years ago, I had traditional Catholics [not Novus Ordo] say to me, "Well, you never know. He may have died with BOD". Even then, in my grief, I thought how odd.
So, on a practical level, this means that a Catholic can never know whether a non-Catholic [known or not known] was saved or not. If that is the case, it calls into question, why the need for Sacramental Baptism in the first place?
I won't deny it completely because I see it in the later catechisms, but something is off.
Indeed, something is off with the whole thing. Part of what's off is that the notion of BoD was gradually extended from its original context, asking whether a catechumen who died before Baptism could be saved. That was the big motivation that prompted the speculation in the first place, where people saw seemingly-good and seemingly-devout catechumens pass away before Baptism. St. Augustine actually explains that. People were disturbed by the idea that (to paraphrase St. Augustine) devout catechumens occasionally died before Baptism, but some scoundrels who postponed Baptism til the end so they could continue on in sin. But St. Augustine rejected that reasoning and said one should not think in those terms "if one wishes to be Catholic" and that it leads to a "vortex of confusion". This was in his later years when he changed his mind about BoD. Some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence come from St. Augustine ... and yet the subsequent BoD theorists ... St. Bernard (who was largely responsible for the resurgence of the idea after it had faded away for 600 years) and Pope Innocent ... they both based their opinion on the "authority of Augustine". But St. Augustine never taught the opinion with authority. He said, "Having considered the matter over and over again [gone back and forth about it], I FIND that [BoD theory]." Notice, "I find", clearly indicating that it's speculative authority. Had this been the consistent teaching of the Church, St. Augustine would have certainly said so, would not have gone back and forth on it, and would not have said "I find," but would have taught it with authority. So this tentative speculative statement is what the later BoDers referred to as the "authority" of St. Augustine?
Here's a great (albeit lengthy writeup):
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
I must commend your great faith, where given that your father who passed away was Jєωιѕн, you nevertheless have not had a knee-jerk emotional reaction to rally behind the notion of BoD. I believe that many of the most ardent proponents of BoD are motivated by emotional considerations and not by faith and reason. One of them recently said something to the effect that "I refuse to believe that all those millions of souls in the New World before it was discovered had been lost." And this emotional reaction to the New World discovery was what prompted the invention of the novel "Rewarder God" theory, which when when combined with an extended "implicit" view of Baptism of Desire, could allow them to speculate that all those could have been saved. There's no actual theological proof for Rewarder God theory, and it runs counter to the unanimous teaching and belief of the Church for the first 1500+ years.
-
You're right about it being tied to emotion. It's a hard thought to realize that my Lutheran grandpa is in hell, given that he died suddenly; but that's the grave reality of the situation here. A reality which has been effectively lost on so many "Catholics" these days who have grown lukewarm and complacent with the "nice" sentiment that non-Catholics are saved. It's precisely why almost no one evangelizes.
-
You're right about it being tied to emotion. It's a hard thought to realize that my Lutheran grandpa is in hell, given that he died suddenly; but that's the grave reality of the situation here. A reality which has been effectively lost on so many "Catholics" these days who have grown lukewarm and complacent with the "nice" sentiment that non-Catholics are saved. It's precisely why almost no one evangelizes.
Yes, with sudden death, even if someone happens to be Catholic, yet an obstinate sinner, such as divorced and "remarried" (living in sin), there's always that sorrow. But we don't respond to that by claiming that Bergoglio was right and that one can be living in adultery and still be in a state of grace.
Now, as a Lutheran, your grandpa was likely validly baptized, so that does allow for the possibility (albeit very remote, naturally speaking) that he received some interior illumination and grace before he could no longer do so. Time is of no consequence to God. He can accomplish anything in a split millisecond of time, or can suspend time as needed. Various saints (invoking God's power) have raised people back to life so they could be baptized.
And even in the case of a Jєω, as in 2Vermont's father, God CAN easily provide both conversion and the Sacrament, sending an angel to administer it. St. Cyprian, who believed in "Baptism of Blood", stated that those martyrs receive THE SACRAMENT of Baptism. I know that the Dimond Brothers call this out as a error. But I'm pretty sure he meant exactly that. He said that the blood supplied for the water while the angels pronounced the words (of the form). So for him BoB was still the Sacrament of Baptism, except that blood was used instead of water. Of course, Trent dogmatically taught that natural water must be used for the Sacrament. But it's still interesting about what some Fathers REALLY meant by "Baptism of Blood," where for some of them it was not an exception to the necessity of the Sacrament but an alternate mode of administering it (with matter and form).
There's absolutely NO NEED TO POSIT Baptism of Desire even for emotional reasons. Only those who lack faith feel compelled to do so, with one of their arguments being that God could be prevented by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament to His elect. St. Thomas said of the pagan living in the jungle that, if they're properly disposed, God can (and will) send an angel if necessary to convert them. What's to stop Him? Impossibility? If Our Lord God taught us that one must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, there's nothing that could possibly get in the way of making that possible for His elect. Even XavierSem who had been very much anti-Feeneyite, in the end, began to hold the opinion that God would bring the Sacrament to all His elect ... even if it meant using extraordinary means. What need is there to speculate about substitutes for Baptism when something would render its reception "impossible"? That's almost heretical, claiming that God is constrained by impossibility. There's this general slur against Feneeyites that we believe that God is limited by the Sacraments, where it's really they who presume to limit God ... with "impossibility". We simply believe that Our Lord will keep true to His word. If He stated that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation, then you can be sure that He can and will get it to His elect.
I forget which saint it was, but there was a devout (apparently Catholic) woman who regularly received the Sacraments and then died. It was revealed to the saint that the woman had not been validly baptized. So he raised her back to life in order to baptize her. While back, she stated that she had been without her "wedding garment". That harkens of course to the parable of Our Lord in which He explained that those who show up to the banquet without their wedding garment will be cast out.
-
https://catholicism.org/st-martin-of-tours-raised-unbaptized-catechumen-to-life.html
From the account of Saint Martin’s biographer, Sulpicius Severus, a certain man joined the saint’s monastery in France for instruction as a catechumen. He died while the saint was away. When Saint Martin returned the deceased was still laid out on his death bed, having died suddenly without baptism. Saint Martin raised him to life in order to baptize him. Here, according to Sulpicius Severus, is what the resuscitated man related happened to him when he appeared before the judgment seat of God.
[When] he left the body, he was brought before the tribunal of the Judge [God], and had a dismal sentenced pronounced on him which relegated him to the dark places among the crowd of common men. Then, however, he added, it was suggested by two angels of the Judge that he was the man for whom Martin was praying; and so the same angels were ordered to lead him back and to give him to Martin, and restore him to his former life.
Now, one would assume that the catechumen had a desire for baptism. That is why he enlisted himself for instruction at the monastery. Saint Patrick, who was the nephew of Saint Martin, raised thirty-three people from the dead, many of whom were already buried.
-
https://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html
Nor is this some form of a deus ex machina solution that we have created. It is based on absolute fidelity to the words of Christ’s mandate concerning Baptism, but conjoined with His particular providence. Moreover, Father Feeney’s position on this matter becomes most reasonable when one reads in the lives of certain saints that they raised to life catechumens who died unbaptized (e.g. Saint Martin of Tours, Saint Patrick, Saint Peter Claver, Saint Francis Xavier). In the case of Saint Peter Claver there was a certain Negro woman who had been an exemplary Christian — a supposed Christian. She received Holy Communion from the saint and went to Confession to him frequently. What Saint Peter did not know was that she had never been baptized. So when this lady appeared before Christ as she herself related she was sent back to mortal life because she was told she “had not on the proper wedding garment.”
This woman who received Holy Communion regularly was as likely as anyone to be in a state of justification (sanctifying grace). Yet she was not admitted into Heaven due to lack of the "proper wedding garment".
-
There's absolutely NO NEED TO POSIT Baptism of Desire even for emotional reasons. Only those who lack faith feel compelled to do so, with one of their arguments being that God could be prevented by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament to His elect.
Most of us here believe, or rather it would be better to say accept, BOD because we believe it is taught by the Church and consistent with the Gospel. I came around to that view after being a very vocal advocate for "Feeneyism" myself. And I am a strict believer in Predestination and align myself with the most vigorous and strictest of the Thomists in that regard: God saves whom HE wills and how He wills, and NOTHING can prevent Him from doing it.
You are talking about Pelagian heretics who want to embrace non-Catholics and non-Christians in heaven. It may likely turn out that neither they, nor those who reject or don't know Christ (who won't be there), will be there.
You say the Magisterium doesn't teach it. That's your issue. I have come to accept that it does.
-
Most of us here believe, or rather it would be better to say accept, BOD because we believe it is taught by the Church and consistent with the Gospel.
The Gospel: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5
I don't see any room for BOD in that statement. The same statement from Our Lord used to contextualize the same definition of Trent that is abused by BOD advocates.
-
Most of us here believe, or rather it would be better to say accept, BOD because we believe it is taught by the Church and consistent with the Gospel. I came around to that view after being a very vocal advocate for "Feeneyism" myself. And I am a strict believer in Predestination and align myself with the most vigorous and strictest of the Thomists in that regard: God saves whom HE wills and how He wills, and NOTHING can prevent Him from doing it.
You are talking about Pelagian heretics who want to embrace non-Catholics and non-Christians in heaven. It may likely turn out that neither they, nor those who reject or don't know Christ (who won't be there), will be there.
You say the Magisterium doesn't teach it. That's your issue. I have come to accept that it does.
Yes, indeed, my chief contention is with the Pelagian heretics (who apply a distorted notion of BoD in such a way as to attack and undermine EENS dogma). I don't have a big quarrel with those who hold the more narrowly understand version ... just a disagreement. As I said, I do not believe that the BoD speculation, if limited to catechumens, for instance, undermines EENS because, as even Rahner admitted, for the Church Fathers who may have countenanced a BoD, it was limited to catechumens, whom they considered already to be in a sense within the visible Church. He had the intellectual honesty to admit that the Fathers would never countenance BoD being applied to anyone who was not visibly united to the Church. St. Robert held the exact same view. And there's zero support in the Magisterium for this Pelagian anti-EENS "version" of BoD. Yet the Pelagian BoDers hide behind St. Robert, St. Thomas, the Church Fathers as if these latter by simply supporting a notion of BoD also backed their perversion of it. Thus my discussion about the "core concept" of BoD needing to be strictly defined to exclude such abuse.
I disagree that the Magisterium (other than the opinion of Innocent about the unbaptized priest) has taught that there's a BoD that suffices for salvation and for entering the Kingdom. Trent says justification, and Pope St. Sulpicius explicitly states that everyone of those desiring Baptism would forfeit the Kingdom were they not to receive the Sacrament before departing this life. I believe there's some KIND of "BoD" (and, as you know, I hate the term, as the term itself is used to water down (pun intended) the strength of the votum so that it could be more liberally applied even to infidels ... and I also object to characterizing it as if it were a separate Baptism, rather than a mode of RECEIVING the ONE baptism we profess in the creed). Thus St. Robert said that they received Baptism in voto). And of course that phrase Baptism of Desire appears nowhere in the Magisterium. I think it's entirely UNclear WHAT it is that we are to believe about it; otherwise there would not be so many variations on what it means and how it works.
So the testimony of the Magisterium for a BoD that can result in salvation without the Sacrament is incredibly thin ... limited really to a letter by Pope Innocent II that is arguably even Magisterium, vs. his opinion as a private Doctor, and which is not protected by infallibility as it fails to meet the notes thereof. I believe that his opinion was in error (and it contradicts St. Alphonsus in one respect) ... just as in another letter to a bishop Innocent also erroneously opined that the consecration at Mass would be valid if a priest merely thought the words of consecration.
So that's the Magisterium proper. But you then extend the Magisterium to the teaching of theologians and even catechisms (even local ones). I do not believe Catechism of Trent teaches BoD, but like Trent itself, falls short of that. You assert that this constitutes a virtually unananimous teaching of the OUM. I disagree entirely. Consensus of opinion among theologians (for a certain period in Church history) does NOT constitute a teaching of the OUM. Also, on a side note, the OUM is considered infallible (per VI) when it proposes some truth to be "divinely revealed". But the majority of theologians (as surveyed by Father Cekada) do not hold BoD to be de fide. Similarly, there's a difference between a virtually-unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and what's known as a dogmatic consensus. It's one thing if the Fathers simply HAPPEN to agree on something, but in order to be a dogmatic consensus, the agreement has to be BECAUSE it was received from the Apostles. And discerning between the two can be tricky and ultimately rests with the Church. We had theologians virtually unanimous in the erroneous teaching of St. Augustine for about 700 years until it was corrected by the Church. They simply happened to agree, because they followed Augustine, but it turns out that the ultimate roots of this teaching were not to be found in the Deposit of Revelation, but merely with Augustine's own personal authority.
Now, one of the criteria generally applied to discern an authoritative teaching of the OUM is that it's something that has been believed everywhere, by all, and at all times. We see, however, that the majority of Church Fathers rejected the concept of BoD, and then when the subject resurfaced several hundred years later (after near total silence about it in Catholic sources) among the pre-scholastic, it was as a disputed question.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, discernment of truths that may be defined via the OUM can be so tricky as to be practically impossible to do so in a definitive manner.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecuмenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecuмenical councils and the pope.
This is true also of the "dogmatic consensus" of the Church Fathers for a lot of matters. Similar to the OUM, if all the Church Fathers are unanimous that some teaching was handed down from the Apostles, then that's evidence for its having been part of the Deposit of Revelation. But what if they don't clearly say that but just happen to agree on some point. Maybe it's due to Apostolic authority (and being in the Deposit) or perhaps there's some other root cause (one Church Father made a theological conclusion and the others ended up agreeing with it. As we have seen, MOST Church Fathers rejected BoD ... which makes it very likely that it was not in fact revealed, but represents theological speculation on the part of some of them. I'm sure you've read where St. Augustine initially floated the notion of BoD, where he said that after having gone back and forth (considering it over and over again), "I find that ..." He was not teaching this with some kind of authority or claiming that it was a truth received from the Apostles. And he later retracted this. But then after it resurfaced as a disputed question, both St. Bernard and Pope Innocent went with it based on the "authority of Augustine." Yet St. Augustine did not teach this with authority, not real teaching authority. Perhaps they used the term loosely in the sense of St. Augustine being an authority due to his stature and due to the respect they had for him. In other circles where the issue was debated, it was known as "the Augustinian opinion".
There's simply no evidence that BoD is revealed and is therefore definable as de fide, but it very clearly appears to fall into the category of theological speculation.
In any case, you appeal to the Magisterium and to the OUM. But then you think that an Ecuмenical Council (which has much greater authority than Ordinary Magisterium) can err. You cite pre-V2 catechisms as if they were authoritative, but then ignore the authority of the NO Catechism of the Catholic Church. You assert that the practically-universal teaching of Popes, bishops, and theologians has been in error for over 60 years (where they endorse V2 and the NOM as Catholic). So I really don't understand how you can then consistently assert the pre-V2 Magisterium that includes catechisms and theologians as authoritative while rejecting the post-V2 "Magisterium".
Sure, I get it if you believe Trent taught BoD. I disagree, but I would understand. But even then, Trent did not actually define BoD as positively obligatory belief. Those truths which Trent intended to define are generally to be found in the Canons. There's no Canon stating that "If anyone says that salvation cannot be attained by the votum for the Sacrament of Baptism alone, without the actual laver (washing with water), let him be anathema." So this mention of votum in a lengthy expository section does not appear to meet the notes of infallibility. One can read Trent as saying that someone is not a heretic for positing that the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation can be upheld and maintained by asserting that the votum might suffice, but there's no positive definition, as there was for Confession, that it does in fact positively suffice. Even then, it was for "justification" while Trent was silent about "salvation" (a distinction common among the theologians of the time, some of whom, for instance, posited that infidels could be justified but not saved). So not every word of Trent meets the notes of infallibility. On the other hand, R&R use the assertion that none of the teachings of V2 meet the notes of infallibility to reject some of its teachings as erroneous. So why are the non-infallible portions of Trent obligatory while the non-infallible portions of V2 not obligatory?
-
The Gospel: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5
I don't see any room for BOD in that statement. The same statement from Our Lord used to contextualize the same definition of Trent that is abused by BOD advocates.
Indeed.
And that is not a mere statement, that is Divine Revelation, a truth revealed by God Himself. Again, how is it that Catholic people are able to read that and at the same time believe a BOD - *and* condemn as heretics those who believe this Revelation?
What is it that goes on in their mind?
-
Indeed.
And that is not a mere statement, that is Divine Revelation, a truth revealed by God Himself. Again, how is it that Catholic people are able to read that and at the same time believe a BOD - *and* condemn as heretics those who believe this Revelation?
What is it that goes on in their mind?
Actual heresy has that effect. It blinds them to the Truth.
-
I must commend your great faith, where given that your father who passed away was Jєωιѕн, you nevertheless have not had a knee-jerk emotional reaction to rally behind the notion of BoD. I believe that many of the most ardent proponents of BoD are motivated by emotional considerations and not by faith and reason.
I find it even harder with my mother, but she's still alive, so I continue to pray daily for her conversion before her death...that she explicitly request baptism to me [because quite honestly that's the only way I see it happening given the people around her].
-
Actual heresy has that effect. It blinds them to the Truth.
What "heresy" is that exactly?
-
Actual heresy has that effect. It blinds them to the Truth.
True, yet aside from a BOD, they profess the Catholic faith - so I would not say *they* are heretics, rather simply mistaken. I would say they are heretics as my personal opinion, if they persist in promoting the idea as LOT did a few years ago when he blindly flooded the place with BOD propaganda for months. That was really something. I thought he flipped his lid or something for a while - it was that extreme.
-
What "heresy" is that exactly?
Pelagianism, for one.
Two: the belief that souls can be saved without baptism outside of the Church.
Three: that there are three baptisms, not one: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." [Ephesians 4:5]
True, yet aside from a BOD, they profess the Catholic faith - so I would not say *they* are heretics, rather simply mistaken. I would say they are heretics as my personal opinion, if they persist in promoting the idea as LOT did a few years ago when he blindly flooded the place with BOD propaganda for months. That was really something. I thought he flipped his lid or something for a while - it was that extreme.
Right. I'm not saying anyone in particular in this thread is overtly a heretic. One only becomes a heretic when they've been shown repeatedly the truth on the matter and persist in the error that souls can be saved without baptism. You see this, unfortunately, with a lot of invincible ignorance-BOD adherents.
-
What "heresy" is that exactly?
Denying a single doctrine of the Church is the sin of heresy, in this case the doctrine being denied is John 3:5.
-
True, yet aside from a BOD, they profess the Catholic faith - so I would not say *they* are heretics, rather simply mistaken. I would say they are heretics as my personal opinion, if they persist in promoting the idea as LOT did a few years ago when he blindly flooded the place with BOD propaganda for months. That was really something. I thought he flipped his lid or something for a while - it was that extreme.
Stubborn,
Just to be clear, you would say not say St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus - I'll stop there - were in your personal opinion heretics, right? Only people who "persist in promoting the idea"? Not sure how one parses that, but . . .
DR
-
Pelagianism, for one.
Two: the belief that souls can be saved without baptism outside of the Church.
Three: that there are three baptisms, not one: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." [Ephesians 4:5]
Right. I'm not saying anyone in particular in this thread is overtly a heretic. One only becomes a heretic when they've been shown repeatedly the truth on the matter and persist in the error that souls can be saved without baptism. You see this, unfortunately, with a lot of invincible ignorance-BOD adherents.
DL,
Right, no one can be saved outside the Church. So, Pelagians or anyone who asserts otherwise, sure. Although some may say "outside" and only mean they are not formal members of the body - like I think of the Pius X catechism, which says "outside" but then also says they are united to the soul of the Church, thus not really "outside." That was just some sloppy language.
So, if, say, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonus, St. Thomas of Aquinas, were to read this or some other threads in the ghetto here and be "shown repeatedly" what I guess they didn't consider or were not exposed to, they would be persisting in heresy and heretics?
DR
-
Stubborn,
Just to be clear, you would say not say St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus - I'll stop there - were in your personal opinion heretics, right? Only people who "persist in promoting the idea"? Not sure how one parses that, but . . .
DR
Not Stubborn, but there's a distinction here. Ss. Thomas and Alphonsus taught that SOME CATECHUMENS may be saved through BOD, BUT they would go to Purgatory before entering the Kingdom. I disagree with them, but it isn't heresy because catechumens are still visible members of the Church. And it's a very narrow margin that MAY be saved by it.
Modern BOD heretics believe that ANYONE can be saved by BOD, including those outside of the Body, such as infidels (Jєωs, pagans, Muslims, etc) which is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to defined DOGMA on EENS.
-
Modern BOD heretics believe that ANYONE can be saved by BOD, including those outside of the Body, such as infidels (Jєωs, pagans, Muslims, etc) which is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to defined DOGMA on EENS.
Concedo.
But it is possible to extend the notion of a BOD beyond catechumen and those with an explicit desire for the sacrament. I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it.
I say you'd be going too far to say that anyone who says that someone who has an implicit desire for the sacrament, with explicit faith in Christ, can be saved is a heretic.
As for me, I have expressed my opinion on this here, and indicated that I believe the desire necessary requires an explicit desire for the sacrament. I also think I have very good reasons for that, but allow that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and respect the opinion of some very great and wise Catholics on that.
DR
-
Stubborn,
Just to be clear, you would say not say St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus - I'll stop there - were in your personal opinion heretics, right? Only people who "persist in promoting the idea"? Not sure how one parses that, but . . .
DR
Well, I would say that Trent closed the issue for all time, and since Trent taught John 3:5 and contrary to a BOD, whoever still believes a BOD is in error - not a heretic. St. Thomas was in error on this subject and other subjects as well - so what? Regardless, St. Thomas died way before Trent, as for the other saints, it's whatever. If St. Thomas, arguably the greatest of all theologians, was in error on this subject - then no one is immune from error on this subject.
This is not at all about the great saints and Fathers, it's all about Trent having cleared up the matter for all of the faithful for all time, yet because there are text books we call catechisms with teachings contrary to Trent on this subject, the Catholic people believe the text books over Trent's clear teachings - why? That's all I'm asking, that is what I would like to know.
-
Well, I would say that Trent closed the issue for all time, and since Trent taught John 3:5 and contrary to a BOD, whoever still believes a BOD is in error - not a heretic. St. Thomas was in error on this subject and other subjects as well - so what? Regardless, St. Thomas died way before Trent, as for the other saints, it's whatever. If St. Thomas, arguably the greatest of all theologians, was in error on this subject - then no one is immune from error on this subject.
This is not at all about the great saints and Fathers, it's all about Trent having cleared up the matter for all of the faithful for all time, yet because there are text books we call catechisms with teachings contrary to Trent on this subject, the Catholic people believe the text books over Trent's clear teachings - why? That's all I'm asking, that is what I would like to know.
St. Robert and St. Alphonsus are after Trent. That's the "whatever."
-
Orestes Brownson gives an excellent summary of the issue:
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
-
St. Robert and St. Alphonsus are after Trent. That's the "whatever."
True, yet St. Alphonsus condemned a BOD - also, apparently, taught it.
Again, yes, it's whatever. It is "whatever" because Trent is the final word on the matter, and unlike the saints, we cannot question Trent's teaching, nor can we believe contrary to it - and certainly we cannot do both at the same time, yet most do. Why?
-
Concedo.
But it is possible to extend the notion of a BOD beyond catechumen and those with an explicit desire for the sacrament. I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it.
I say you'd be going too far to say that anyone who says that someone who has an implicit desire for the sacrament, with explicit faith in Christ, can be saved is a heretic.
As for me, I have expressed my opinion on this here, and indicated that I believe the desire necessary requires an explicit desire for the sacrament. I also think I have very good reasons for that, but allow that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and respect the opinion of some very great and wise Catholics on that.
DR
Again, if you read St. Alphonsus on the position, he extends it as far as to those with a knowledge of the Incarnation and the Trinity. That's it. And it's total speculation, hence why THEOLOGIANS are discussing it. Their job is to speculate on these matters, but they cannot define them. If someone poses the question: what if a catechumen dies right before Baptism, will they be saved? Then you have the theologians proposing that there's a possibility that their desire could justify them and that they go to Purgatory; but this in NO WAY is a position taught by the Church herself, but the well-informed OPINION of a theologian. You're free to accept or reject it provided it does not deny a dogma, e.g. teach heresy, or does not contradict a later definition (such as the IC and St. Thomas, he was simply wrong).
But this is leagues away from believing that anyone can be saved by this desire. If you look at what anti-EENS BOD adherents teach, they explicitly state Jєωs, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc etc could be saved by this desire. Which is heresy.
Fr. Denis Fahey explicitly stated that the Jew who rejects Christ could be saved: "It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul," That is blatant heresy, and far different than what Ss. Alphonsus or Aquinas or Bellarmine propose.
-
I say you'd be going too far to say that anyone who says that someone who has an implicit desire for the sacrament, with explicit faith in Christ, can be saved is a heretic.
Agreed. Unfortunately the notion of "implicit BoD" has been morphed into being used synonymously with "implicit faith" ... and I do hold Rewarder God theory to be objectively heretical even if not condemned yet with the note of heresy by the Church. In recent years, some, like Jorge Begoglio, have taken it even a step further, alleging that even atheists may be saved.
I believe the farthest that "implicit" can be taken would be --
EXPLICIT: I intend to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
IMPLICIT: I intend to become a Catholic .. with the implicit intention to be baptized.
This has been stretched into multiple degrees of separation from explicit however, to where a lot of people interpret it as --
I am a good guy, which implicitly contains wanting to do good, which implicitly contains wanting to do the will of God, which implicitly contains wanting to become a Catholic, which implicitly contains wanting to be baptized.
-
Agreed. Unfortunately the notion of "implicit BoD" has been morphed into being used synonymously with "implicit faith" ... and I do hold Rewarder God theory to be objectively heretical even if not condemned yet with the note of heresy by the Church. In recent years, some, like Jorge Begoglio, have taken it even a step further, alleging that even atheists may be saved.
I believe the farthest that "implicit" can be taken would be --
EXPLICIT: I intend to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
IMPLICIT: I intend to become a Catholic .. with the implicit intention to be baptized.
This has been stretched into multiple degrees of separation from explicit however, to where a lot of people interpret it as --
I am a good guy, which implicitly contains wanting to do good, which implicitly contains wanting to do the will of God, which implicitly contains wanting to become a Catholic, which implicitly contains wanting to be baptized.
Yes, and this is the same mentality that many priests and bishops had at Fr. Feeney's time, which is why he was "condemned" by that heretic Cardinal Cushing, when he was right in defending the EENS dogma. The universal salvation of the Novus Ordo didn't come from nowhere.
I don't believe people who hold to the Liguori/Aquinas BOD are heretics, but I do think they're in error for reasons already expressed. And the Church has never explicitly condemned BOD. BUT if you're going around saying that you think people are saved because they might have a passing desire for baptism but do nothing to adhere to the Church and remain in their false religion or position, then yes, I believe that is heresy.
-
Yes, a BOD took it's natural course and many believe this scan below, I saved it from years ago when arguing with Myrna.....
(https://i.imgur.com/dzTnY8W.png)
-
But this is leagues away from believing that anyone can be saved by this desire. If you look at what anti-EENS BOD adherents teach, they explicitly state Jєωs, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc etc could be saved by this desire. Which is heresy.
Fr. Denis Fahey explicitly stated that the Jєω who rejects Christ could be saved: "It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul," That is blatant heresy, and far different than what Ss. Alphonsus or Aquinas or Bellarmine propose.
Indeed, claiming that infidels can be saved cannot be excused of explicit rejection of EENS dogma. That's how deep the rot had spread, that someone like a Fr. Fahey would verbatim contradict a dogmatic definition, which states in no uncertain terms that Jews CANNOT be saved but will go to hell unless they are first joined to the Church.
And it has gotten to the point that many Trads assert this heretical verbatim denial of EENS dogma as the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH and attack even those who assert simply that infidels cannot be saved as at least savoring of heresy (I've heard that from a couple "Trad" bishops).
What mental gymnastics have to be done, how many layers of distinctions applied, to make it so that "what the Church really meant by Jews cannot be saved is that Jews can be saved." Satan is laughing about this diabolical inversion and perversion of Catholic dogma.
Father Feeney was spot on in identifying that this heresy was at the core of the rot working its way into the Church. This is in fact at the very core of ALL the Vatican II errors, and the new Vatican II ecclesiology. And yet Archbishop Lefebvre failed to identity this core problem, as have 99% of Trad bishops and clergy.
If someone believes that non-Catholics can be saved, then one must accept V2 ecclesiology (and all the errors that flow from it).
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church.
MINOR: Heretics, schismatics, Jews , other infidels can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Heretics, schismatics, Jews, other infidels can be inside the Church.
So the Conclusion is V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell, that the Church consists not only of Catholics (its subsistent core), but also extends to a variety of heretics, schismatics, Jews, and other infidels who, while materially separated from this subsistent core of the Church are nevertheless formally within the Church.
-
For another Scriptural proof contra the Pelagian-BOD heresy, we have St. Paul justifying why God permits that many will not receive the Gospel and be damned for their sins:
"And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world 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 Cor. 4:3-4
-
Again, if you read St. Alphonsus on the position, he extends it as far as to those with a knowledge of the Incarnation and the Trinity. That's it. And it's total speculation, hence why THEOLOGIANS are discussing it. Their job is to speculate on these matters, but they cannot define them. If someone poses the question: what if a catechumen dies right before Baptism, will they be saved? Then you have the theologians proposing that there's a possibility that their desire could justify them and that they go to Purgatory; but this in NO WAY is a position taught by the Church herself, but the well-informed OPINION of a theologian. You're free to accept or reject it provided it does not deny a dogma, e.g. teach heresy, or does not contradict a later definition (such as the IC and St. Thomas, he was simply wrong).
But this is leagues away from believing that anyone can be saved by this desire. If you look at what anti-EENS BOD adherents teach, they explicitly state Jєωs, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, etc etc could be saved by this desire. Which is heresy.
Fr. Denis Fahey explicitly stated that the Jєω who rejects Christ could be saved: "It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul," That is blatant heresy, and far different than what Ss. Alphonsus or Aquinas or Bellarmine propose.
The Fr. Fahey comment is particularly disturbing since he got so much else right, and is a bit of a champion among Trads. There, in a nutshell, is a vivid prequel to Vatican II, and in Fr. Fahey of all people. Maddening.
-
The Fr. Fahey comment is particularly disturbing since he got so much else right, and is a bit of a champion among Trads. There, in a nutshell, is a vivid prequel to Vatican II, and in Fr. Fahey of all people. Maddening.
I only found out about it in the past couple months. It was disturbing, to put it mildly. Especially since I love his books.
Even Abp. Lefebvre has promoted the same error, which is where I think all of the SSPX and sedevacantist priests/bishops have gotten the error too since the prominent ones went through the Econe seminary. Against the Heresies, pp. 216, 217, 218:
Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
This heresy against EENS is THE major cause of all that we've seen leading up to and after Vatican II. It is the most insidious of the rotten fruits of the Modernism heresy.
-
I find it even harder with my mother, but she's still alive, so I continue to pray daily for her conversion before her death...that she explicitly request baptism to me [because quite honestly that's the only way I see it happening given the people around her].
This is similar to my wife. She is so blind and obstinate that I don't see her being saved unless it's a situation where she is on her deathbed. And this obstinacy is exactly why I've personally baptized all three of my kids.
-
Even Abp. Lefebvre has promoted the same error, which is where I think all of the SSPX and sedevacantist priests/bishops have gotten the error too since the prominent ones went through the Econe seminary. Against the Heresies, pp. 216, 217, 218:
This heresy against EENS is THE major cause of all that we've seen leading up to and after Vatican II. It is the most insidious of the rotten fruits of the Modernism heresy.
Indeed, there's no dogma that no one is saved except BY the Church; it reads that no one is saved OUTSIDE the Church, and the Archbishop doesn't even try to explain how these various infidels are IN the Church. This demonstrates (along side the Fr. Fahey example) how DEEP the rot had gotten with regard to Catholic soteriology and ecclesiology. Archbishop Lefebvre probably adopted this opinion because it was taught to him PRE-Vatican II by a professor he respected as otherwise orthodox and Traditional. Archbishop Lefebvre's view of EENS here is identical to Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theory.
And I am astonished to see how few Trad bishops and priests understand THE theological roots of the V2 crisis, that it all leads back to EENS-denial (and the resultant ecclesiology). So while condemning the errors of V2 (which are merely symptoms of the disease) they at the same time condemn those who are fighting against the ROOT error behind it all. V2 is but a symptom (and expression) of this core theological battle, and they're decidedly on the WRONG side of the issue and are in fact fighting FOR the enemy in the final anlysis.
-
Yes, a BOD took it's natural course and many believe this scan below, I saved it from years ago when arguing with Myrna.....
(https://i.imgur.com/dzTnY8W.png)
This text attempts to reduce the reception of Baptism to a necessity of precept alone. This author HAD to know this was an error, because other than this text, I have never seen any theologian characterize the necessity as anything but a necessity of means.
On top of that, removing the necessity (of means) for Baptism, they replace it with various ex opere operanto activity, whereby people essentially save themselves. This is thinly veiled if not completely open Pelagianism.
-
Indeed, there's no dogma that no one is saved except BY the Church; it reads that no one is saved OUTSIDE the Church, and the Archbishop doesn't even try to explain how these various infidels are IN the Church. This demonstrates (along side the Fr. Fahey example) how DEEP the rot had gotten with regard to Catholic soteriology and ecclesiology. Archbishop Lefebvre probably adopted this opinion because it was taught to him PRE-Vatican II by a professor he respected as otherwise orthodox and Traditional. Archbishop Lefebvre's view of EENS here is identical to Karl Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theory.
And I am astonished to see how few Trad bishops and priests understand THE theological roots of the V2 crisis, that it all leads back to EENS-denial (and the resultant ecclesiology). So while condemning the errors of V2 (which are merely symptoms of the disease) they at the same time condemn those who are fighting against the ROOT error behind it all. V2 is but a symptom (and expression) of this core theological battle, and they're decidedly on the WRONG side of the issue and are in fact fighting FOR the enemy in the final analysis.
Literally: "And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." [Matthew 15:14] This false soteriology continuing amongst these groups has everything to do with what their predecessors erroneously believed. The Archbishop believed this heresy, so all of his sacerdotal progeny believe it, even those who broke away from the Society.
It's difficult to even attempt to excuse these men because they should have known the true teaching to begin with...what a mess. God help them and God help us. :facepalm:
-
Indeed, there's no dogma that no one is saved except BY the Church; it reads that no one is saved OUTSIDE the Church
Indeed, it isn't "Sine Ecclesiam Nulla Salus", on the contrary, it is "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". :incense:
-
Literally: "And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." [Matthew 15:14] This false soteriology continuing amongst these groups has everything to do with what their predecessors erroneously believed. The Archbishop believed this heresy, so all of his sacerdotal progeny believe it, even those who broke away from the Society.
It's difficult to even attempt to excuse these men because they should have known the true teaching to begin with...what a mess. God help them and God help us. :facepalm:
I think the problem with not only +ABL, but pretty much all of the clergy and hierarchy since at least the 1940s has everything to do with what they did to Fr. Feeney. To this day he is still slandered as an evil villain and an excommunicated heretic - even by trads whenever a BOD or EENS comes up.
Aside from slandering Fr. Feeney as an excommunicated heretic for preaching the dogma, his own Church superiors in conjunction with the Jєω media, managed to convince most of the faithful in the whole world that a) it is the sin of heresy to take the dogma literally, b) that there certainly is a BOD, and that c) salvation outside of the Church is not only possible, it's so probable that it's all but a given - and Fr. Feeney is evil because he is the one who tried to take this all away.
-
Brownson got it exactly right (full quote in my post here at #103):
Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Note what he says: "receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione." I think Lad would agree that's that's the main issue. I think this requires an "explicit desire," but that's besides the point and perhaps my problem. I talked about the "core concept" in this or another thread, and that's it: the possibility (a positive formulation of the Brownson's negation of the negative, "not impossible") of justification/salvation by votum.
Msgr. Fention expressed it thus:
The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu)мenism/members.htm
Fenton says this is "the revealed teaching," and includes "an implicit votum." I'm not sure of that, but I'll accept that; anyway, as I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter: explicit or implicit, the core remains: the real possibility of salvation in Christ by votum.
St. Robert Bellarmine expressed it thus:
I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved . . .
But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities... Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto).
Quotes from Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire - Conlon, Christopher P_.pdf, pp. 52-54
https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Conlon,%20Christopher%20P_/Sources%20of%20Baptism%20of%20Blood%20&%20Baptism%20of%20Desire%20(7021)/Sources%20of%20Baptism%20of%20Blood%20&%20Baptism%20of%20D%20-%20Conlon,%20Christopher%20P_.pdf
-
Brownson got it exactly right (full quote in my post here at #103):
Note what he says: "receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione." I think Lad would agree that's that's the main issue. I think this requires an "explicit desire," but that's besides the point and perhaps my problem. I talked about the "core concept" in this or another thread, and that's it: the possibility (a positive formulation of the Brownson's negation of the negative, "not impossible") of justification/salvation by votum.
Msgr. Fention expressed it thus:
Fenton says this is "the revealed teaching," and includes "an implicit votum." I'm not sure of that, but I'll accept that; anyway, as I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter: explicit or implicit, the core remains: the real possibility of salvation in Christ by votum.
St. Robert Bellarmine expressed it thus:
I'm pretty much done with this discussion [I think I spent way too much time on it already. I've also noticed my posting in general is starting an upward trend again, and that's not good for me], but I think the core issue [as Lad mentioned on page 6] is squaring "possibility of salvation by desire" vs "absolutely necessary to receive water baptism for salvation". And when I refer to salvation, I am referring to going to Heaven/seeing the Beatific Vision vs going to some sort of Limbo where there is no suffering.
-
I'm pretty much done with this discussion [I think I spent way too much time on it already. I've also noticed my posting in general is starting an upward trend again, and that's not good for me], but I think the core issue [as Lad mentioned on page 6] is squaring "possibility of salvation by desire" vs "absolutely necessary to receive water baptism for salvation". And when I refer to salvation, I am referring to going to Heaven/seeing the Beatific Vision vs going to some sort of Limbo where there is no suffering.
The "absolute necessity" would be the receipt of the grace of the sacrament either in re or by votum.
I understand being done with the discussion. You express your view and clarify as necessary, then at some point it becomes redundant unless some other issue introduces itself.
-
The "absolute necessity" would be the receipt of the grace of the sacrament either in re or by votum.
I understand being done with the discussion. You express your view and clarify as necessary, then at some point it becomes redundant unless some other issue introduces itself.
Unfortunately, the absolute necessary speaks of water baptism, so no the issue of squaring is still there.
Anyway, thanks for understanding. I hope I didn't come off rude...it wasn't meant to be.
-
Unfortunately, the absolute necessary speaks of water baptism, so no the issue of squaring is still there.
Anyway, thanks for understanding. I hope I didn't come off rude...it wasn't meant to be.
Ok, but not for St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, etc., and they were aware of, and cited, the Council of Trent.
But I absolutely understand and share your concern and faithfulness as a member of the body of Christ in reflecting on this issue:
Galatians 1:8-10
[8]But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
-
Ok, but not for St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, etc., and they were aware of, and cited, the Council of Trent.
I got this quote from St. Alphonsus from a poster who, believe it or not, was actually using it to show St. Alphonsus taught a BOD:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)." - Saint Alphonsus Liguori
Taken from: (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Dublin, 1846.)
-
I got this quote from St. Alphonsus from a poster who, believe it or not, was actually using it to show St. Alphonsus taught a BOD:
You would really have to twist his words to get BOD out of that...
"SEE? St. Alphonsus says "desire" at the end of a sentence including "baptism"!" It's the same error of reading into what Trent says while ignoring syntax and context. :facepalm:
-
Yes, with sudden death, even if someone happens to be Catholic, yet an obstinate sinner, such as divorced and "remarried" (living in sin), there's always that sorrow. But we don't respond to that by claiming that Bergoglio was right and that one can be living in adultery and still be in a state of grace.
Now, as a Lutheran, your grandpa was likely validly baptized, so that does allow for the possibility (albeit very remote, naturally speaking) that he received some interior illumination and grace before he could no longer do so. Time is of no consequence to God. He can accomplish anything in a split millisecond of time, or can suspend time as needed. Various saints (invoking God's power) have raised people back to life so they could be baptized.
And even in the case of a Jєω, as in 2Vermont's father, God CAN easily provide both conversion and the Sacrament, sending an angel to administer it. St. Cyprian, who believed in "Baptism of Blood", stated that those martyrs receive THE SACRAMENT of Baptism. I know that the Dimond Brothers call this out as a error. But I'm pretty sure he meant exactly that. He said that the blood supplied for the water while the angels pronounced the words (of the form). So for him BoB was still the Sacrament of Baptism, except that blood was used instead of water. Of course, Trent dogmatically taught that natural water must be used for the Sacrament. But it's still interesting about what some Fathers REALLY meant by "Baptism of Blood," where for some of them it was not an exception to the necessity of the Sacrament but an alternate mode of administering it (with matter and form).
There's absolutely NO NEED TO POSIT Baptism of Desire even for emotional reasons. Only those who lack faith feel compelled to do so, with one of their arguments being that God could be prevented by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament to His elect. St. Thomas said of the pagan living in the jungle that, if they're properly disposed, God can (and will) send an angel if necessary to convert them. What's to stop Him? Impossibility? If Our Lord God taught us that one must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, there's nothing that could possibly get in the way of making that possible for His elect. Even XavierSem who had been very much anti-Feeneyite, in the end, began to hold the opinion that God would bring the Sacrament to all His elect ... even if it meant using extraordinary means. What need is there to speculate about substitutes for Baptism when something would render its reception "impossible"? That's almost heretical, claiming that God is constrained by impossibility. There's this general slur against Feneeyites that we believe that God is limited by the Sacraments, where it's really they who presume to limit God ... with "impossibility". We simply believe that Our Lord will keep true to His word. If He stated that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation, then you can be sure that He can and will get it to His elect.
I forget which saint it was, but there was a devout (apparently Catholic) woman who regularly received the Sacraments and then died. It was revealed to the saint that the woman had not been validly baptized. So he raised her back to life in order to baptize her. While back, she stated that she had been without her "wedding garment". That harkens of course to the parable of Our Lord in which He explained that those who show up to the banquet without their wedding garment will be cast out.
This miracle was mentioned in the biography of Saint Peter Claver, S.J. The woman was named Augustina. She was Saint Peter's "right-hand man" in his work with the slaves in Columbia.
-
But it is possible to extend the notion of a BOD beyond catechumen and those with an explicit desire for the sacrament.
How? Even an implicit desire for baptism means the person is implicitly a catechumen. It’s impossible to desire baptism without a) knowing about the Church, and b) knowing about baptism and what it means. So, logically, if a person desires the Church and baptism, they are, by definition, a catechumen. Implicit or explicit.
—- You said:——-
I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it.
———-
It might be, if you are defining implicit BOD as some vague “desire for God or truth”. Someone can’t have BOD without a knowledge of the Church and the papacy and some general knowledge of Her requirements. Someone can’t have BOD without the knowledge of what a sacrament is, what a priest is, and the purpose of the sacrament (ie membership in the Church).
See, it is “implicit” in the knowledge of the Trinity/Incarnation that Christ was born into this world to 1) start a church, sent by the Father and 2) that Christ would send the Holy Ghost to sanctify us (by the sacraments/mass), that we may gain heaven.
It would be heresy (and illogical word games) to say that one could desire BOD without knowing 1) what the church is and who started it and 2) that baptism = membership in Christ’s church.
If someone doesn’t have this knowledge and desire then they don’t have BOD. Such knowledge and desire means they are, implicitly, a catechumen. So it’s impossible for ANYONE to have true BOD without being a catechumen.
-
How? Even an implicit desire for baptism means the person is implicitly a catechumen. It’s impossible to desire baptism without a) knowing about the Church, and b) knowing about baptism and what it means. So, logically, if a person desires the Church and baptism, they are, by definition, a catechumen. Implicit or explicit.
—- You said:——-
I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it.
———-
It might be, if you are defining implicit BOD as some vague “desire for God or truth”. Someone can’t have BOD without a knowledge of the Church and the papacy and some general knowledge of Her requirements. Someone can’t have BOD without the knowledge of what a sacrament is, what a priest is, and the purpose of the sacrament (ie membership in the Church).
See, it is “implicit” in the knowledge of the Trinity/Incarnation that Christ was born into this world to 1) start a church, sent by the Father and 2) that Christ would send the Holy Ghost to sanctify us (by the sacraments/mass), that we may gain heaven.
It would be heresy (and illogical word games) to say that one could desire BOD without knowing 1) what the church is and who started it and 2) that baptism = membership in Christ’s church.
If someone doesn’t have this knowledge and desire then they don’t have BOD. Such knowledge and desire means they are, implicitly, a catechumen. So it’s impossible for ANYONE to have true BOD without being a catechumen.
Right. Which is why St. Alphonsus states that there has to be at minimum a belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to even "qualify" for such a possibility.
-
The point being, one has to understand the Trinity/incarnation as they relate to, and are connected to, the Church. An unbaptized person who rejects the Church/papacy cannot have BOD because if you reject the Church, you also reject Her sacraments. That’s why only a catechumen can have BOD because to truly want baptism, you have to truly want the Church. To separate baptism from the Church is a modernist heresy.
-
The point being, one has to understand the Trinity/incarnation as they relate to, and are connected to, the Church. An unbaptized person who rejects the Church/papacy cannot have BOD because if you reject the Church, you also reject Her sacraments. That’s why only a catechumen can have BOD because to truly want baptism, you have to truly want the Church. To separate baptism from the Church is a modernist heresy.
Yes! I like the way St. Thomas puts it......
St. Thomas Aquinas' Catechetical Instructions (pdf attached):
"When a man is baptised the first question that is asked him is: "Do you believe in God?" This is because Baptism is the first Sacrament of faith. Hence, the Lord said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.Baptism without faith is of no value."
Which reminds me that that's yet *another* thing BODers either ignore or know nothing about - namely, the Church's procedures and rubrics for baptism. It seems if they trouble themselves to concern themselves about it at all, all they ever concern themselves with is the emergency rubrics which can be administered by literally anyone using the water from a puddle, but this is a among the rarest of occurrences, it's not the rule.
The fact is, the Church has very strict rules that are required for the recipient - adult or infant, and a set of rubrics for her baptismal ceremony that must be followed. For infants for example, the sponsors must give [the correct] answers for the infant or the Church will not baptize it.
Through the parents and sponsors, the Church presumes an infant baptized in the Church has and will be raised in the faith - that is the reason they must answer for the infant. The proper disposition is presumed through the sponsors who take the baptismal vows and promises on behalf, in place of, and for the child. The sponsors vow that the child wants the Catholic faith and will be raised in the Catholic faith, in doing this, they answer for the child that the child has the "proper disposition" or the desire to be baptized. Without this, the priest cannot baptize the infant.
The parents and sponsors are promising *for* the infant, promising on behalf of the infant that the infant wants to be baptized, wants the faith, wants to be Catholic, wants eternal life and on and on - in a sense, they must convince the Church to baptize their infant by vowing for the infant that he will be raised a Catholic, or the priest cannot baptize him.
-
You would really have to twist his words to get BOD out of that...
"SEE? St. Alphonsus says "desire" at the end of a sentence including "baptism"!" It's the same error of reading into what Trent says while ignoring syntax and context. :facepalm:
You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13). Here, he states that Soave thought the fathers didn't even require an implicit desire of baptism to be justified. St. Alphonsus rejects this, then goes on to teach implicit BOD as certain.
11. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."
12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto).
13. Soave says that at least the implicit desire of Baptism (the same holds for penance in regards to sinners) appeared to many of the fathers not to be necessary for justification: because Cornelius and the good thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism. But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave: for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defence of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel. Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.
St. Alphonsus also understood the Coucil of Trent to be teaching BOD in Session 6, Chapter 4 (St. Robert Bellarmine understood it the same way). It's one thing to say Trent didn't teach BOD, and that this means something like "without a spoke or wheel". It's quite another for anyone to say it so clearly doesn't teach BOD that it can't be misunderstood to be teaching it, when this would mean the two greatest Doctors of the Church after Trent misunderstood something so clear that it can't be misunderstood.
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
- Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97
-
You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13).
You miss his point. We know St. Alphonsus believed in a Baptism of Desire that sufficed for justification. His point is that BoDers are often caught distorting passing and reading stuff into them that isn't thee.
At the same time, however, St. Alphonsus held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. So either he's contradicting himself or else he too is making the justification vs. salvation distinction that was prevalent at the time. There are other theologians who believed the same thing, that infidels could be justified, but not saved (de Lugo is the one that comes to mind).
-
This citation above from St. Alphonsus is obviously in error:
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
Trent did not teach that "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it.'". Trent taught that no one can be JUSTIFIED. So that's already an error right out of the gate.
It's interesting also that he (wrongly) cites "de presbytero non baptizto" as if it were a dogmatic source. Yet that source clearly indicates that someone who's saved by BoD would go to Heaven immediately and without delay. But St. Alphonsus said that this was not true, but held that temporal punishment due to sin remained after BoD. Well, if that's a dogmatic source, then St. Alphonsus' theory is heretical.
Finally, he speaks of people who have BoD as being regenerated. Problem with that is that Trent defines "regeneration" at initial justification (a rebirth) as wiping out all sin and punishment due to sin, so that no stain or guilt of sin remains or any punishment due to sin. So that too renders St. Alphonsus theory that temporal punishment remains after BoD heretical.
As per usual, BoD results in nothing but confusion and chaos and contradiction and error.
I supposed than in his "spiritual" works, St. Alphonsus was just blatantly lying when he wrote that for those born among the infidels "ALL are lost". Or perhaps it was just pious hyperbole.
-
Lots of bizarre things about "de presbytero non baptizato". Apart from the fact that how can you have an unbaptized priest, Innocent "asserts without hesitation that ... this priest [went to heaven]" ... continuing to call him a priest, and somehow declaring that this man went to Heaven. I guess we should immediately canonize this priest, since we have Innocent III's authority for it. Then he "asserts without hesitation" [that this priest is in Heaven] "based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose". He does not teach it, but rather "asserts" (as if he were in a debate and opining in favor of it) nor is this letter addressed to the universal Church, and does not teach it by the authority of Sts Peter and Paul, i.e. his papal teaching authority, but on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose. So now Augustine and Ambrose have the authority to define a dogma? Of course, he's mistaken in appealing to that authority, since St. Augustine never taught it with authority, but rather clearly indicated that it was his own speculation, and retracted it later in life, and St. Ambrose didn't teach it at all (that's a misreading of his oration on Valentinian). In a similar letter, Innocent proclaimed that the consecration at Mass would be valid if a priest merely thought the words but did not say them out loud.
Not only does this "de presbyter non baptizato" not meet the notes of infallibility, where the Pope is teaching something with HIS Apostolic authority, the authority of St. Peter, and teaching something to the Universal Church, that must be believed. He's leaning on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, who have no authority to define doctrine for the Church, and is clearly opining ("assert" to does not mean to teach authoritatively, but merely to argue or to opine).
-
Agreed. Unfortunately the notion of "implicit BoD" has been morphed into being used synonymously with "implicit faith" ... and I do hold Rewarder God theory to be objectively heretical even if not condemned yet with the note of heresy by the Church. In recent years, some, like Jorge Begoglio, have taken it even a step further, alleging that even atheists may be saved.
I believe the farthest that "implicit" can be taken would be --
EXPLICIT: I intend to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
IMPLICIT: I intend to become a Catholic .. with the implicit intention to be baptized.
This has been stretched into multiple degrees of separation from explicit however, to where a lot of people interpret it as --
I am a good guy, which implicitly contains wanting to do good, which implicitly contains wanting to do the will of God, which implicitly contains wanting to become a Catholic, which implicitly contains wanting to be baptized.
"If I knew heaven existed I would want to go, therefore..." Is the standard modern definition.
At the time of St. Alphonsus etc implicit was probably defined as you did but was rapidly beginning to expand, given the ideas a lot of priests in the New World were getting or teaching natives (Trinitarian theology errors immediately come to mind but it seems some of these boiled down to linguistic nuance).
-
Lots of bizarre things about "de presbytero non baptizato". Apart from the fact that how can you have an unbaptized priest, Innocent "asserts without hesitation that ... this priest [went to heaven]" ... continuing to call him a priest, and somehow declaring that this man went to Heaven. I guess we should immediately canonize this priest, since we have Innocent III's authority for it. Then he "asserts without hesitation" [that this priest is in Heaven] "based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose". He does not teach it, but rather "asserts" (as if he were in a debate and opining in favor of it) nor is this letter addressed to the universal Church, and does not teach it by the authority of Sts Peter and Paul, i.e. his papal teaching authority, but on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose. So now Augustine and Ambrose have the authority to define a dogma? Of course, he's mistaken in appealing to that authority, since St. Augustine never taught it with authority, but rather clearly indicated that it was his own speculation, and retracted it later in life, and St. Ambrose didn't teach it at all (that's a misreading of his oration on Valentinian). In a similar letter, Innocent proclaimed that the consecration at Mass would be valid if a priest merely thought the words but did not say them out loud.
Not only does this "de presbyter non baptizato" not meet the notes of infallibility, where the Pope is teaching something with HIS Apostolic authority, the authority of St. Peter, and teaching something to the Universal Church, that must be believed. He's leaning on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, who have no authority to define doctrine for the Church, and is clearly opining ("assert" to does not mean to teach authoritatively, but merely to argue or to opine).
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html
Pope Innocent III
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)
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg687079/#msg687079
Council of Trent
1545-1563
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm)
Canons on the Sacraments in General:
(Canon 4)
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
St. Bernard Of Clairvaux
On Baptism And The Office of the Bishops,
Pages 159 - 160
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879071672/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879071672&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879071672/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879071672&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20) />
8. It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars--I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, imitating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices.
-
Yes, not only are these formulations of salvation by "faith alone" clearly erroneous, but the different sources are in contradiction with one another on quite a few points.
-
You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13). Here, he states that Soave thought the fathers didn't even require an implicit desire of baptism to be justified. St. Alphonsus rejects this, then goes on to teach implicit BOD as certain.
St. Alphonsus also understood the Coucil of Trent to be teaching BOD in Session 6, Chapter 4 (St. Robert Bellarmine understood it the same way). It's one thing to say Trent didn't teach BOD, and that this means something like "without a spoke or wheel". It's quite another for anyone to say it so clearly doesn't teach BODr that it can't be misunderstood to be teaching it, when this would mean the two greatest Doctors of the Church after Trent misunderstood something so clear that it can't be misunderstood.
- Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97
Refreshing common sense.
-
Refreshing common sense.
Why does it matter to you what St. Alphonsus believed? You hold that an Ecuмenical Council could teach grave error to the Church, that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt, and that the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to souls.
-
You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13). Here, he states that Soave thought the fathers didn't even require an implicit desire of baptism to be justified. St. Alphonsus rejects this, then goes on to teach implicit BOD as certain.
No, this is not true. You read meanings into words which the words do not say, while failing to advert to what the words do say.
13. ....But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave: for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defense of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel.
So according to St. Alphonsus, he agrees with Pallavicini in that using St. Dismas, the Good Thief, and St. Cornellius as examples of salvation without the sacrament is wrong because the obligation to receive the sacrament was not yet instituted.
13. .... Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
This is also in agreement with the decrees of Trent and is no endorsement of salvation without the sacrament.
Since he is explaining Trent, it is obvious that he is speaking of a catechumen who is about to be received into the Church through the reception of the sacraments, lest he would not include "...Penance and of the Eucharist." after Baptism.
14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.
Here again, he echoes Trent in condemnation of Luther and everyone who claims that salvation is possible without the sacrament.
-
Why does it matter to you what St. Alphonsus believed?
Why do I always have to explain things to you? “Refreshing common sense” from In Principio.
You hold that an Ecuмenical Council could teach grave error to the Church, that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt, and that the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to souls.
Because it (they) did.
-
But if an Ecuмenical Council can teach serious error, all the Popes and bishops and theologians can teach serious error for >60 years, etc. ... how is it that you cite the St. Alphonsus as an "authority"? If these previous could be wrong, then why couldn't St. Alphonsus be wrong, and his is just another opinion?
This kind of selective filtering of authorities is common with the pro-BoDers.
1) they'll assert that the Church Fathers unanimously believed in BoD (as a number of Trad BoD apologists have claimed) ... whereas at least 5-6 Church Fathers explicitly rejected it, compared to the 2 that allegedly held it (St. Augustine as a tentative opinion later retracted, and St. Ambrose arguably at best). For some reason, the anti-BoD Fathers are ignored or "filtered out", whereas Augustine and Ambrose are cited as ultimate authorities. What were these other Fathers, chopped liver? At least Karl Rahner had the honesty to admit that the Fathers generally had no use for a BoD, and to the extent they did limited it to formal catechumens. Patristic scholar Jurgens stated that not only is there no evidence that any notion of exceptions to Baptism existed among the Fathers, but, rather, the opposite, so much so that it might be considered revealed that there's no salvation without the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
2) BoDers will beat Feeneyites over the head with citations from St. Thomas, but often at the same time suddenly forget his "authority" when he taught that there can be no salvation without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
These examples of dishonest authority filtering demonstrate confirmation bias, that something other than objectivity drives the belief in R&R.
So, similarly, you'll claim that we have to accept the pre-Vatican II theologians on BoD, but then it's OK to reject the post-Vatican II theologians who unanimously teach that Vatican II and the NOM are Catholic. What happened to the OUM in the early 1960s?
-
This citation above from St. Alphonsus is obviously in error:
Trent did not teach that "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it.'". Trent taught that no one can be JUSTIFIED. So that's already an error right out of the gate.
It's interesting also that he (wrongly) cites "de presbytero non baptizto" as if it were a dogmatic source. Yet that source clearly indicates that someone who's saved by BoD would go to Heaven immediately and without delay. But St. Alphonsus said that this was not true, but held that temporal punishment due to sin remained after BoD. Well, if that's a dogmatic source, then St. Alphonsus' theory is heretical.
Finally, he speaks of people who have BoD as being regenerated. Problem with that is that Trent defines "regeneration" at initial justification (a rebirth) as wiping out all sin and punishment due to sin, so that no stain or guilt of sin remains or any punishment due to sin. So that too renders St. Alphonsus theory that temporal punishment remains after BoD heretical.
As per usual, BoD results in nothing but confusion and chaos and contradiction and error.
I supposed than in his "spiritual" works, St. Alphonsus was just blatantly lying when he wrote that for those born among the infidels "ALL are lost". Or perhaps it was just pious hyperbole.
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
He also speaks of "justified" in paragraph 13, so he even seems to contradict himself:
In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.
-
Since he is explaining Trent, it is obvious that he is speaking of a catechumen who is about to be received into the Church through the reception of the sacraments, lest he would not include "...Penance and of the Eucharist." after Baptism.
This is an interesting point given he also says this right after that part:
He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment.
Are we to deduce that an infidel who dies with the desire for baptism also had the desire for confession and eucharist? That really seems far-fetched indeed.
-
This is an interesting point given he also says this right after that part:
He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment.
Ya, it all makes sense as long as you don't lose sight of what he says in #12.
I believe it is either a misquote, or St. Alphonsus is mistaken in the quote:
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
The reason I say that is because Session 6, Chapter 4 says nothing of the sort - which means it is a misquote - whether or not this is intentional who knows? But it is blatantly obvious that that quote is not from Session 6, Chapter 4.
6:4 states that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof. There is no mention of salvation in that chapter.
But either way, to say as the quote says: "no one is saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it," is to say no one is saved without the sacrament. To add "or the desire for it" is to say neither is anyone saved with the desire for the sacrament.
-
But either way, to say as the quote says: "no one is saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it," is to say no one is saved without the sacrament. To add "or the desire for it" is to say neither is anyone saved with the desire for the sacrament.
Right. It's the same as if one were talking about the Sacrament of matrimony, where there can be no marriage unless there is bridegroom or bride. Can you have marriage with a bridegroom only? Or a bride only? No, both are required. It comes right back to the core issue here: with baptism, you cannot be saved with the laver of regeneration but no desire for it. And vice versa, you cannot be saved with a desire for it but no laver of regeneration.
That's why I postulate that BOD and BOB are both accidental causes of the justification already formally introduced by the actual Sacrament of water baptism. BOD is really nothing more than perfect contrition, and BOB is nothing more than Holy martyrdom. Both have a similar effect as baptism: they justify and remit sin by the merit of their action. But you must have already been baptized for it to have any effect at all.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
(My emphasis)
-
with baptism, you cannot be saved with the laver of regeneration but no desire for it.
And this teaching of Trent must also be understood in the context of history and the error they were combating at the time - forced baptisms. Trent was saying, no, a forced baptism doesn't work. If a person receives a valid baptism formula, but has no desire, then the sacrament is invalid.
The idea that Trent would spend so little time on a complex matter of BOD, and that it meant to "teach" BOD by way of 1 phrase (not even a complete sentence) is retarded. Had Trent wanted to address the topic, you'd expect a separate session, or at least a few paragraphs with quotes from Church Fathers, etc.
Also, what sense does it make that Trent would "teach" BOD, but not discuss BOB? It seems logical that both of these would be discussed together, since most Church Fathers who wrote about them, did so in tandem.
-
He also speaks of "justified" in paragraph 13, so he even seems to contradict himself:
There are some other problems with St. Alphonsus' thinking. He holds that if someone is saved by BoD, then temporal punishment for sin can still remain.
But that contradicts what Pope Innocent taught on the matter (so, in holding such letter to be de fide), that would make his opinion there heretical. That Pope claimed that the one individual who he confidently "asserts" is in Heaven (not just that he COULD have been saved), but would go to heaven immediately and without delay.
Also, Trent clearly teaches that initial justification is a rebirth or regeneration, and then defines rebirth/regeneration as a COMPLETE renewal of the individual, wiping out all traces of sin or punishment due to sin. This was highlighted by the Dimond Brothers, and they are quite correct.
BoD theory is fraught with contradiction and confusion, with wide ranges of theories about what it does, what it doesn't do, etc. etc. To me that's a clear indication that it's never been taught by the Church. You cannot believe in something without knowing what that something is. I can't believe in a phrase "BoD", but can only assent intellectually to various propositions.
-
I believe it is either a misquote, or St. Alphonsus is mistaken in the quote:
It's probably a misquote, whether purposefully or accidentally, I can't say. Most people on this site don't really understand the difference between salvation/justification, so I could see the scenario where a translator would replace "justified" with "saved".
-
It's probably a misquote, whether purposefully or accidentally, I can't say. Most people on this site don't really understand the difference between salvation/justification, so I could see the scenario where a translator would replace "justified" with "saved".
That's possible. This wouldn't be the first time something related to EENS dogma has been mistranslated.
-
That's possible. This wouldn't be the first time something related to EENS dogma has been mistranslated.
Or the first time laypeople think they know better, just by reading the texts of the decrees, it should be obvious to everyone. Very similar to the Protestant reading of the Bible!
-
Or the first time laypeople think they know better, just by reading the texts of the decrees, it should be obvious to everyone. Very similar to the Protestant reading of the Bible!
Well, valid clergy told everyone that Vatican II was orthodox and assuming you are a lay person, who the hell do you think you are saying they are wrong?
-
Or the first time laypeople think they know better, just by reading the texts of the decrees, it should be obvious to everyone. Very similar to the Protestant reading of the Bible!
Garbage. Burden of proof is on you jokers who claim that the "real meaning" of these dogmas is actually the opposite of what they actually say. You make an absolute mockery of the Magisterium by claiming that people who hold that the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church actually means that there's no salvation outside the Church, and that when Trent teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation that, well, it means that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Your quasi-gnostic bullshit that Catholics are required to assimilate and to absorb and regurgitate 2 pages of distinctions until the dogmas mean the opposite of what they say and you have the diabolical temerity and perversity to declare heretics people who believe that the Church's dogmas mean what they say and not, if you "properly understand it", the exact opposite.
You guys are a sick joke. Let me guess. You're another idiot dogmatic SV Cekadist who thinks that theologians are infallible ... except of course when theologians (and all the world's bishops) universally approved Vatican II, or that Popes are infallible every time they pass wind, except of course when Pius XII issued the 1955 Holy Week Rites, as those were actually Modernist. But when some forged docuмent appears claiming to be approved by Pius XII even though it's never published by the Vatican, but only by the arch-Modernist persecutor of Father Feeney (in which case he's actually a champion of the faith, preserving the Church from Feeneyite wickedness) ... but when Pius XII actually approves of something, officially, like the 1955 Holy Week Rites, well, suddenly he's not infallible.
You guys are a sick joke and are perverted by your diabolical refusal to accept EENS dogma. You also condemn yourselves as schismatics, because all of Vatican II that you claim is heretical derives from YOUR ecclesiology.
Or if you're an R&R anti-Feeneyite (like a few on here), the absurd joke that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error, along with 60 years of papal Magisterium, but now under pain of heresy people have to accept the fraudulent "Suprema Haec".
You're both sick jokes.
-
Well, valid clergy told everyone that Vatican II was orthodox and assuming you are a lay person, who the hell do you think you are saying they are wrong?
THIS! Every single Bishop and every single theologian, and if you're R&R vs. SV, every single "Pope" for the past 60 years has approved of and taught that Vatican II is solid Catholic doctrine. These jokers just believe what they want to believe, reject what they want to reject, paying no attention to whether they're contradicting themselves at every turn.