Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ambrose on May 21, 2014, 01:38:44 PM
-
Posted on Facebook, April 27, 2014
Father Kramer wrote:
TO ALL FEENEYITES:
Your disagreement with the infallibly defined doctrine of Baptism of Desire is as irrational as it is heretical. You have no excuse: Justification takes place by the laver of regeneration or the desire of it ("aut ejus voto"). The doctrine is interpreted in that sense officially in the Roman Catechism. The doctrine of baptism by "votum" is explained in the Roman Catechism by authotity of the pope who presided over the latter sessions of the Council of Trent and formulated by the most eminent Council Fathers of Trent, namely, St. Charles Borromeo. Do you disagree with their undertanding of the expression "aut ejus voto" -- of them who formulated and ratified the Decree on Justification? Do you disagree with all the popes and doctors who understood the Decree as clearly teaching Baptism of Desire? Are you aware that Vatican I defined under penalty of «anathema» that you must understand the dogmas as the Church has understood and understands them? The Church has always understood and understands the dogma in question to mean "without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it" The Church has always understood and transmitted the clearly expressed doctrine of the Decree on Justification that those who die justified and sanctified by baptism "or the desire of it" inherit eternal life -- yet you disagree with the constant teaching of the Church on this point of dogma. Are you aware that just because the word «aut» can sometimes mean "and" as well as "or" is absolutely of no consequence here? The term "votum" is always employed in reference to the fulfillment of some future deed or duty, and therefore cannot be correctly translated in this context as "the laver of regeneration and the desire of it"; as if one being baptized at present could absurdly have the simultaneous desire to receive it at some time in the future. Your disagrerment is a direct denial of an infallibly defined teaching of the Council of Trent, and of the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. By your obstinate denial of the defined dogma, you place yourself under the «anathema» (Canon 33 Decree on Justification) and outside the Church.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. The denial of "Extra Eccleasiam Nulla Salus" is a novelty. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, Ambrose and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
You should ask them, I am not a member of the CMRI.
My guess though, is that as Catholics we have a duty to defend the Faith from heresy. The denial of Baptism of Desire is a dangerous modern heresy and Catholics must stand against it.
-
Perhaps it is because CMRI fervently adheres to the Suprema haec sacra letter published which in 1949 against Fr. Leonard Feeney. This letter teaches salvation for non-Catholics (this is non-members of the Body of Christ) via “implicit” baptism of desire, and invincible ignorance.
Also, CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.” It was published in the Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, The CMRI’s publication.
Does someone have a link for said article? It would be a most delightful read!
The article is supposed to indicate that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a heretical rejection of Catholic dogma. This article is not the only one. CMRI has published other pamphlets defending Baptism of "Desire" and salvation for those outside the visible Church.
-
Coming from someone who thinks that Benedict is still the pope because Francis is guilty of the same heresy regarding the Jews that Benedict also held. Go figure.
-
Not to mention that Father Kramer has already discredited himself when it comes to both theology and reading comprehension. He juxtaposes texts from the Church which condemn the notion that the Old Law and Mosaic ritual have not been revoked with mention that the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
His discussion of "votum" and the "future" is nothing short of idiotic.
-
Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.
Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.
Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. The denial of "Extra Eccleasiam Nulla Salus" is a novelty. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
I was getting ready to ask what's with all the Feeneyites or EENS-defenders who are novus ordites? The novus ordo has been mocking EENS since the early 1950's.
Deny EENS? The novus ordo denies Our Lord by saying that non-Christian faiths have the means of salvationin them.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. The denial of "Extra Eccleasiam Nulla Salus" is a novelty. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
I was getting ready to ask what's with all the Feeneyites or EENS-defenders who are novus ordites? The novus ordo has been mocking EENS since the early 1950's.
Deny EENS? The novus ordo denies Our Lord by saying that non-Christian faiths have the means of salvationin them.
There are "feeneyites" that happen to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, which is a separate and distinct rite of Mass within the Latin Church.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. The denial of "Extra Eccleasiam Nulla Salus" is a novelty. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
I was getting ready to ask what's with all the Feeneyites or EENS-defenders who are novus ordites? The novus ordo has been mocking EENS since the early 1950's.
Deny EENS? The novus ordo denies Our Lord by saying that non-Christian faiths have the means of salvationin them.
There are "feeneyites" that happen to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, which is a separate and distinct rite of Mass within the Latin Church.
It is not Catholic, it is not a work of the Church , and it is always a sacrilege.
-
Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.
Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.
Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.
No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire. You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong. I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.
To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.
-
Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referneced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referneced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.
God bless,
JoeZ
Baptism of Desire has been carefully explained by the theologians over and over again.
-
Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referneced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.
God bless,
JoeZ
Baptism of Desire has been carefully explained by the theologians over and over again.
With all due respect, dear Ambrose, that is not an answer to my position.
Please ask yourself why you will not answer this directly. One should never fear argument when he is on the side of truth because truth has the advantage of being supported by God.
God bless,
JoeZ
PS When the honestly mistaken man sees the truth, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest.
-
Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referneced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.
God bless,
JoeZ
Baptism of Desire has been carefully explained by the theologians over and over again.
With all due respect, dear Ambrose, that is not an answer to my position.
Please ask yourself why you will not answer this directly. One should never fear argument when he is on the side of truth because truth has the advantage of being supported by God.
God bless,
JoeZ
PS When the honestly mistaken man sees the truth, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest.
Can you quote Fr. Kramer as saying that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. I have never read any such idea from him.
I was not dodging your question, rather urging you to pick up an approved theology manual and begin learning.
-
Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.
Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.
Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.
No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire. You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong. I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.
You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.
You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.
Defend yourself against that accusation.
To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.
Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......
A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.
Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?
Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?
Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.
If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.
-
Can you quote Fr. Kramer as saying that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. I have never read any such idea from him.
That's because if you turn the "laver" / "desire" phrase into either/or (as I've pointed out myriad times), you're saying that the Sacrament suffices without the desire. And Trent has two or three canons which explicitly reject the notion that Baptism can be efficacious without the desire (=votum = will =cooperation). This proves that Trent was teaching about the need for cooperation of the will and not the so-called Baptism of Desire.
Despite his bloviations about anathemas, it's ironically Mr. Kramer who falls under the anathema of Trent by denying the need for the desire in order to be justified in Baptism. "Father" Kramer would do well to investigate the validity of his "Holy Orders" and also needs to supplement his Novus Ordo "theological" training.
-
Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.
Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.
Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.
No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire. You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong. I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.
You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.
You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.
Defend yourself against that accusation.
To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.
Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......
A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.
Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?
Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?
Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.
If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.
The Sacraments are necessary in fact or on desire as the Council of Trent teaches. You accept the first, but are rejecting the second.
You are not allowed to pick which teachings you will believe, and reject those that you struggle with. Some struggle with the teaching on transubstantiation, others contraception, others the Papacy, but for you, your point of conflict with Catholic Teaching is on Baptism of Desire.
If you are having trouble, just let go and trust the Church which can neither deceive nor be deceived. To reject even one point of Church Teaching, is to in effect reject Catholicism.
-
Can you quote Fr. Kramer as saying that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. I have never read any such idea from him.
That's because if you turn the "laver" / "desire" phrase into either/or (as I've pointed out myriad times), you're saying that the Sacrament suffices without the desire. And Trent has two or three canons which explicitly reject the notion that Baptism can be efficacious without the desire (=votum = will =cooperation). This proves that Trent was teaching about the need for cooperation of the will and not the so-called Baptism of Desire.
Despite his bloviations about anathemas, it's ironically Mr. Kramer who falls under the anathema of Trent by denying the need for the desire in order to be justified in Baptism. "Father" Kramer would do well to investigate the validity of his "Holy Orders" and also needs to supplement his Novus Ordo "theological" training.
It proves it only to you and the Dimonds. No one, ever, since the Council of Trent, has held this perverse view of the Council's teaching.
The Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. All Doctors and theologians since Trent, have all known this to be a fact and have the Council of Trent as a source of this teaching.
You stand alone with the Dimonds and those of like mind against the Doctors of the Church and the dogmatic theologians, who all have much better reading comprehension than you, and can read the obvious teaching on Trent without distorting it to support this modern heresy of denying Baptism of Desire.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. The denial of "Extra Eccleasiam Nulla Salus" is a novelty. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
I was getting ready to ask what's with all the Feeneyites or EENS-defenders who are novus ordites? The novus ordo has been mocking EENS since the early 1950's.
Deny EENS? The novus ordo denies Our Lord by saying that non-Christian faiths have the means of salvationin them.
There are "feeneyites" that happen to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, which is a separate and distinct rite of Mass within the Latin Church.
There are "Feeneyites" who attend a worship service where it is openly stated that other religions are means of salvation?
Does that strike you as odd? It does to me.
A Feeneyite cannot be an indifferentist but a novus ordite can.
-
Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.
Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.
Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.
No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire. You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong. I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.
You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.
You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.
Defend yourself against that accusation.
To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.
Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......
A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.
Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?
Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?
Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.
If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.
The Sacraments are necessary in fact or on desire as the Council of Trent teaches. You accept the first, but are rejecting the second.
You are not allowed to pick which teachings you will believe, and reject those that you struggle with. Some struggle with the teaching on transubstantiation, others contraception, others the Papacy, but for you, your point of conflict with Catholic Teaching is on Baptism of Desire.
If you are having trouble, just let go and trust the Church which can neither deceive nor be deceived. To reject even one point of Church Teaching, is to in effect reject Catholicism.
You only prove you are dishonest NSAAer.
The sacraments are necessary - period. You add the exception; "or in desire" - which is saying that Trent teaches they are not necessary - that is heresy because not only does the Church teach they are a necessity, anyone with a grade school education knows they the cannot be both a necessity and optional.
There is no Church teaching on "A Baptism Of Desire", there is only theological speculation which was condemned as anathema by Trent.
Instead of calling it "A Baptism Of Desire", start calling it what it is - "No Sacrament At All". I understand this will be all but impossible for you to do, but if you can accept this simple yet powerful truth, you will be forced to recognize the heresy for what it is.
You should meditate on why is it that you constantly start threads and champion the heresy of salvation via No Sacrament At All, why you are incapable of defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation and why you cannot honestly reply with honest answers to these simple questions.
Rather, when asked why you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments, you reply that you are defending Church teaching - which is not only not an answer to the question, you speak as though the Church teaches salvation without any sacrament at all - but you have yet to answer the direct question with an honest and direct answer - and as long as you embrace the heresy of salvation via No Sacrament At All, you never will.
So when will you be honest already, when will you admit that far as you're concerned, No Sacrament At All is necessary unto salvation?
I'm only asking for honesty here.
-
Ambrose just showing how he defends the heretical belief that No Sacrament At All is necessary for salvation - it's like he needs his fix or something.
Please note that Ambrose, like Fr. Kramer and all other NSAAers, cannot bring themselves to defend any sacrament - and it is particularly impossible for them to defend the necessity of the sacrament of baptism unto salvation as they no not believe they are necessary for anything at all.
Trent's catechism teaches the reason for this is because Ambrose and all NSAAers despise the sacraments.
No, just defending the Catholoc Faith, whole and entire. You think that you can deny an article of Faith and be saved, but you at wrong. I hope for your sake that God will forgive your ignorance of Catholic Teaching.
You say you're "defending the Catholic Faith, whole and entire" - you do this by promoting salvation without the sacrament, but the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a main part of "the whole and entire" Catholic faith.
You say the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.
Defend yourself against that accusation.
To deny Baptism of Desire is to deny a de fide teaching of the Church, and is heresy.
Though you've posted this error many, many times, this is by far the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted. Let me explain - again......
A "baptism of desire" is No Sacrament At All. You say that salvation via No Sacrament At All is a de fide teaching of the Church. What you say is ridiculous.
Why is it that you cannot get yourself to defend the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for the hope of salvation?
Why, after almost 6 months of asking you to start a thread championing the defense of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, do you keep starting threads against the sacrament, and about salvation without any sacrament at all?
Please admit that you do not believe the sacraments are necessary for our hope of salvation. Please admit that to you, the sacraments are completely optional, that nobody really needs them.
If you do this, I will at least admit you to be an honest NSAAer.
The Sacraments are necessary in fact or on desire as the Council of Trent teaches. You accept the first, but are rejecting the second.
You are not allowed to pick which teachings you will believe, and reject those that you struggle with. Some struggle with the teaching on transubstantiation, others contraception, others the Papacy, but for you, your point of conflict with Catholic Teaching is on Baptism of Desire.
If you are having trouble, just let go and trust the Church which can neither deceive nor be deceived. To reject even one point of Church Teaching, is to in effect reject Catholicism.
You only prove you are dishonest NSAAer.
The sacraments are necessary - period. You add the exception; "or in desire" - which is saying that Trent teaches they are not necessary - that is heresy because not only does the Church teach they are a necessity, anyone with a grade school education knows they the cannot be both a necessity and optional.
There is no Church teaching on "A Baptism Of Desire", there is only theological speculation which was condemned as anathema by Trent.
Instead of calling it "A Baptism Of Desire", start calling it what it is - "No Sacrament At All". I understand this will be all but impossible for you to do, but if you can accept this simple yet powerful truth, you will be forced to recognize the heresy for what it is.
You should meditate on why is it that you constantly start threads and champion the heresy of salvation via No Sacrament At All, why you are incapable of defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation and why you cannot honestly reply with honest answers to these simple questions.
Rather, when asked why you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments, you reply that you are defending Church teaching - which is not only not an answer to the question, you speak as though the Church teaches salvation without any sacrament at all - but you have yet to answer the direct question with an honest and direct answer - and as long as you embrace the heresy of salvation via No Sacrament At All, you never will.
So when will you be honest already, when will you admit that far as you're concerned, No Sacrament At All is necessary unto salvation?
I'm only asking for honesty here.
You are wrong. Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught. If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.
You must believe Baptism of Desire. If you knowingly reject this teaching, you are guilty of heresy, and have severed yourself from the Church.
I would urge you to stop what you are doing, pray about it, and learn from approved sources. Throw the Dimond and Feeneyite heretical garbage into the fire and look to save your soul.
Catholics are strictly warned to not allow themselves to adopt heretical propositions against the Faith.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, Ambrose and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
You should ask them, I am not a member of the CMRI.
My guess though, is that as Catholics we have a duty to defend the Faith from heresy. The denial of Baptism of Desire is a dangerous modern heresy and Catholics must stand against it.
Its not a heresy, its more of a schism. Most that hold EENS still hold as catholic those who believe what St. Thomas and St. Ligouri held as BOD/BOB, so its not inherently schismatic. The problem is that they really do think that the matter has been settled on their score, and what do we base this on? Their own doctrine, because its not something that was based on magisterial teaching. For the past 300 years, we know for sure the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).
Similarly to SV'ism, the EENS issue is not in itself schismatic, but I believe that those who are objectively schismatics on both of these theological conclusions are/were schismatics before going into this belief. So it is just smokes and mirrors, for the real thing going on behind the background. Just look at the Saint Benedict Center, they are quite in communion with sedeplenist/sedevacantist (they might reject SV'ism but they don't consider it schismatic ipso facto). Once again, its not EENS or SV'ism that is the danger, but the fact of the matter is a tendency towards a sin against Charity, principally against the Unity of the Church itself. They care more about their own interpretations then anything else, which is why it doesn't matter what you quote or say, it will always be the same thing. Copy paste, a bunch of Denzinger quotes which they think agrees with them, but really does not and then anathema sit to whoever disagrees.
-
the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).
If the theological opinion of BOD for catechumens ONLY (notice, never doctrine) was commonly accepted and even taught in fallible catechisms in modern times, was because nobody really saw how the modernists were going to twist a permissible opinion (again for catechumens only, not just for "anybody" not prone to mass murder) into the odious heresy of salvation for non-Catholics and therefore, indifferentism.
Perhaps on this Fr. Feeney was first and we should have listened.
If they care at all for the theological opinion of BOD, is so they can justify the denial of EESN via invincible ignorance. Last minute BOD is the loophole they use. But the salutary dogma of EESN is clear and has been so for almost 2000 years. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is to be taken as written and there is only one way for the remission of original sin and entrance into the Church: water baptism.
The words of a dogmatic formula are not to be taken as figurative language, but are to be taken literally with the same sense and meaning for all time. In both Lamentabili and Pascendi Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative-symbolic, having a merely practical function, and not as immutable laws from Heaven that never change.
Now that we know for sure where the modernists found the "loophole" they needed for undermining the exclusivity of Holy Mother Church as only means of human salvation, a most careful re-examination of the theological opinion of BOD is much needed.
-
We need not Fr. Kramer to interpret for us after 2000 years, the infallible Church teaching on EENS. Fr. Kramer is far from being the binding authority of the Church. Truth is there is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
With all due respect, Ambrose and out of genuine curiosity, what is behind all the anti-feeneyite agenda of the CMRI?
You should ask them, I am not a member of the CMRI.
My guess though, is that as Catholics we have a duty to defend the Faith from heresy. The denial of Baptism of Desire is a dangerous modern heresy and Catholics must stand against it.
Its not a heresy, its more of a schism. Most that hold EENS still hold as catholic those who believe what St. Thomas and St. Ligouri held as BOD/BOB, so its not inherently schismatic. The problem is that they really do think that the matter has been settled on their score, and what do we base this on? Their own doctrine, because its not something that was based on magisterial teaching. For the past 300 years, we know for sure the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).
Similarly to SV'ism, the EENS issue is not in itself schismatic, but I believe that those who are objectively schismatics on both of these theological conclusions are/were schismatics before going into this belief. So it is just smokes and mirrors, for the real thing going on behind the background. Just look at the Saint Benedict Center, they are quite in communion with sedeplenist/sedevacantist (they might reject SV'ism but they don't consider it schismatic ipso facto). Once again, its not EENS or SV'ism that is the danger, but the fact of the matter is a tendency towards a sin against Charity, principally against the Unity of the Church itself. They care more about their own interpretations then anything else, which is why it doesn't matter what you quote or say, it will always be the same thing. Copy paste, a bunch of Denzinger quotes which they think agrees with them, but really does not and then anathema sit to whoever disagrees.
I partially agree with you, that in some cases those who have adopted this heresy are schismatics, but in other cases they are not. I also think many are gravely ignorant on this question, and have allowed themselves to be duped by shoddy SBC and Dimond books. For those innocents who are truly ignorant, they would not be guilty of either heresy or schism.
But, there can be no doubt that that the denial of Baptism of Desire, at least since the Council of Trent is heretical. The teaching of Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the Council, and this is why St. Alphonsus gives it the note of de fide.
Some who hold this position hold a mitigated view, and do not deny Baptism of Desire in and of itself, but deny implicit Baptism of Desire. This was the original error of the Saint Benedict Center corrected by the Holy Office in 1949. Those who have adopted this view, are not heretics, but are objectively temerarious. The Holy Office did not condemn them for heresy, rather of doctrinal error. It would still be a mortal sin for those who knowingly reject implicit Baptism of Desire, but they would not be heretics, which would lead them to lose their membership in the Church.
At some point, the Saint Benedict Center's position evolved into a complete denial of Baptism of Desire, which is heretical. The neo-Feeneyites such as the Dimonds, Ibranyi and others are also promoters of the heretical denial of Baptism of Desire.
-
You are wrong. Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught. If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.
Hmmm, let's see:
1) Trent taught whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
You say salvation is rewarded without any sacrament at all, therefore you are, per Trent, anathema.
2)Trent taught that whoever says the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; is anathema.
Here again, you say "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire", you are saying the sacrament is optional, therefore once again, per Trent, you are anathema.
Certainly we can agree that the above 2 bullet points are indisputable evidence that per Trent, you are anathema.
When asked why you refuse to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, you answer that "you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire". So according to you, the Church, wholly and entirely refuses to defend the necessity of the sacraments for our hope of salvation.
My guess is that the day you stop dancing around and explicitly admit that the sacraments are not needed for salvation, that one can make it to heaven without any of them and therefore without the Church, will be the day you wake up.
We know that you and all NSAAers do not believe that the road to hell is the one that's paved with good intentions, not the road to heaven, but if you could believe it, that would be big step in the right direction for you.
-
"you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire"
...could that be whole and entire by desire?.....
-
But, there can be no doubt that that the denial of Baptism of Desire, at least since the Council of Trent is heretical.
Yes, there can be doubt. There's actually no reasonable way to reconcile Trent with your interpretation of it. I've pointed this out multiple times now, but you constantly ignore my arguments. NOT ONE PERSON has offered a refutation of my arguments regarding the correct interpretation of Trent. I'm going to go ahead and write up a lengthy, thorough study of the treatise on justification just to refute this nonsense and also so that I can just link to it in the future and not have to keep retyping everything.
The teaching of Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the Council, and this is why St. Alphonsus gives it the note of de fide.
St. Alphonsus thought it was taught by Trent. He can assign de fide to it all he wants, but that doesn't make it de fide. Theologians commonly disagree about the theological note to be assigned to certain teachings. We saw that, for instance, in the dispute about the infallibility of canonizations, where opinions on the theological note were all over the map.
Moreover, Ambrose, we have pointed out that your interpretation of BoD and its extension to Catholics is in fact tantamount to a direct heretical denial of EENS and renders you schismatic because then you have no theological basis whatsoever to reject the teachings of Vatican II.
-
Does anyone have any proof whatsoever that anyone has ever been saved by Baptism of Desire?
If you think people have been saved by BoD, then explain why God would will to withhold the Sacrament of Baptism from these and give them BoD instead.
-
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, then Trent says that no one can be justified except by either the Sacrament or the Desire for it. It Trent taught that, then BoB doesn't exist except in being reduced to BoD. But that rejects 99% of all the theological speculation regarding BoB (rendering their entire theology on the subject suspect) because all these BoB theorists describe BoB as working quasi ex opere operato. Also it refutes the stupid argument from the Holy Innocents, because then BoB cannot work ex opere operato on those who are not endowed with the use of reason. Finally, it completely overturns the many Church Fathers who believed in BoB but at the same time explicitly rejected BoD. It also rejects the stupid "three baptisms" garbage, because then there are really only TWO Baptisms. Everywhere you turn, you BoD theorists make yourselves look more and more ridiculous and absurd and self-contradictory.
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, making the Sacrament or desire being either/or, then you would have Trent anathematizing itself in the canons where it declares that the Sacrament cannot justify without the cooperation of the will (="votum"). In fact, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION is to discuss the relationship between grace and free will, in particular the Sacramental grace and the proper cooperation and disposition of the will ... and NOT to teach BoD ... against the errors of the Protestants. In fact, the point of the treatise on justification is to defend the NECESSITY of the Sacraments for salvation ... against the Protestant errors (which most of you BoD theorists actually hold and therefore fall under Trent's anathemas). Despite Mr. Kramer's bloviations about anathemas, it's he who falls under Trent's anathema. Ironic, isn't it?
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, you'd be making Trent say, "You can be saved by either the Sacrament OR the desire because Jesus taught that you need the Sacrament AND the desire." You would make a mockery of the Magisterium.
Everwhere you turn BoB and BoD theology are nothing but absurd speculation that's self-contradictory. Dimonds point out very well how St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were completely wrong about their explanation of BoD ... declaring that it does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin (which contradicts Church Magisterium regarding justification).
It's all MADE UP. What says that BoB cannot confer the Baptismal character? Why not? God is not bound by His Sacraments after all? Why CAN'T He imprint the Baptismal Character in an extraordinary way in BoB?
BoD is a sad joke that has led to nothing good whatsoever ... everywhere you turn it has heretical implications (God is bound by impossibility ... though not by the Sacraments, the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, gnostic Pelagianism, stupid self-contradictory arguments, religious indifferentism, Vatican II).
-
Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel necessary for all men, without exception, for salvation.
This is DE FIDE teaching stated in the Council of Trent.
The Cathechism of Trent gives the exact time water Baptism became obligatory on all men for salvation, with no exceptions. It states that: "from the time of Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven, it was then obligatory by law to be baptised for all those who were to be saved".
Trent Canon 2 on Baptism (see my signature) actually anathemized those who say that water is to be understood methaphorically or find any "substitute" for water or turn real and true "water" into a "figure of speech".
Also, those unbaptized persons in false religions, not being members of the Church, are definitely not subject to the Roman Pontiff but it is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff.
It is one of the requirements for salvation:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302).
-
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, then Trent says that no one can be justified except by either the Sacrament or the Desire for it. It Trent taught that, then BoB doesn't exist except in being reduced to BoD. But that rejects 99% of all the theological speculation regarding BoB (rendering their entire theology on the subject suspect) because all these BoB theorists describe BoB as working quasi ex opere operato. Also it refutes the stupid argument from the Holy Innocents, because then BoB cannot work ex opere operato on those who are not endowed with the use of reason. Finally, it completely overturns the many Church Fathers who believed in BoB but at the same time explicitly rejected BoD. It also rejects the stupid "three baptisms" garbage, because then there are really only TWO Baptisms. Everywhere you turn, you BoD theorists make yourselves look more and more ridiculous and absurd and self-contradictory.
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, making the Sacrament or desire being either/or, then you would have Trent anathematizing itself in the canons where it declares that the Sacrament cannot justify without the cooperation of the will (="votum"). In fact, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION is to discuss the relationship between grace and free will, in particular the Sacramental grace and the proper cooperation and disposition of the will ... and NOT to teach BoD ... against the errors of the Protestants. In fact, the point of the treatise on justification is to defend the NECESSITY of the Sacraments for salvation ... against the Protestant errors (which most of you BoD theorists actually hold and therefore fall under Trent's anathemas). Despite Mr. Kramer's bloviations about anathemas, it's he who falls under Trent's anathema. Ironic, isn't it?
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, you'd be making Trent say, "You can be saved by either the Sacrament OR the desire because Jesus taught that you need the Sacrament AND the desire." You would make a mockery of the Magisterium.
Everwhere you turn BoB and BoD theology are nothing but absurd speculation that's self-contradictory. Dimonds point out very well how St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were completely wrong about their explanation of BoD ... declaring that it does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin (which contradicts Church Magisterium regarding justification).
It's all MADE UP. What says that BoB cannot confer the Baptismal character? Why not? God is not bound by His Sacraments after all? Why CAN'T He imprint the Baptismal Character in an extraordinary way in BoB?
BoD is a sad joke that has led to nothing good whatsoever ... everywhere you turn it has heretical implications (God is bound by impossibility ... though not by the Sacraments, the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, gnostic Pelagianism, stupid self-contradictory arguments, religious indifferentism, Vatican II).
Tremendous! :applause:
-
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, then Trent says that no one can be justified except by either the Sacrament or the Desire for it. It Trent taught that, then BoB doesn't exist except in being reduced to BoD. But that rejects 99% of all the theological speculation regarding BoB (rendering their entire theology on the subject suspect) because all these BoB theorists describe BoB as working quasi ex opere operato. Also it refutes the stupid argument from the Holy Innocents, because then BoB cannot work ex opere operato on those who are not endowed with the use of reason. Finally, it completely overturns the many Church Fathers who believed in BoB but at the same time explicitly rejected BoD. It also rejects the stupid "three baptisms" garbage, because then there are really only TWO Baptisms. Everywhere you turn, you BoD theorists make yourselves look more and more ridiculous and absurd and self-contradictory.
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, making the Sacrament or desire being either/or, then you would have Trent anathematizing itself in the canons where it declares that the Sacrament cannot justify without the cooperation of the will (="votum"). In fact, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION is to discuss the relationship between grace and free will, in particular the Sacramental grace and the proper cooperation and disposition of the will ... and NOT to teach BoD ... against the errors of the Protestants. In fact, the point of the treatise on justification is to defend the NECESSITY of the Sacraments for salvation ... against the Protestant errors (which most of you BoD theorists actually hold and therefore fall under Trent's anathemas). Despite Mr. Kramer's bloviations about anathemas, it's he who falls under Trent's anathema. Ironic, isn't it?
If you believe that Trent taught BoD, you'd be making Trent say, "You can be saved by either the Sacrament OR the desire because Jesus taught that you need the Sacrament AND the desire." You would make a mockery of the Magisterium.
Everwhere you turn BoB and BoD theology are nothing but absurd speculation that's self-contradictory. Dimonds point out very well how St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were completely wrong about their explanation of BoD ... declaring that it does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin (which contradicts Church Magisterium regarding justification).
It's all MADE UP. What says that BoB cannot confer the Baptismal character? Why not? God is not bound by His Sacraments after all? Why CAN'T He imprint the Baptismal Character in an extraordinary way in BoB?
BoD is a sad joke that has led to nothing good whatsoever ... everywhere you turn it has heretical implications (God is bound by impossibility ... though not by the Sacraments, the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, gnostic Pelagianism, stupid self-contradictory arguments, religious indifferentism, Vatican II).
Tremendous! :applause:
I also wish to thank you Mr. Ladislaus.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
You are wrong. Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught. If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.
Hmmm, let's see:
1) Trent taught whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
You say salvation is rewarded without any sacrament at all, therefore you are, per Trent, anathema.
2)Trent taught that whoever says the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; is anathema.
Here again, you say "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire", you are saying the sacrament is optional, therefore once again, per Trent, you are anathema.
Certainly we can agree that the above 2 bullet points are indisputable evidence that per Trent, you are anathema.
When asked why you refuse to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, you answer that "you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire". So according to you, the Church, wholly and entirely refuses to defend the necessity of the sacraments for our hope of salvation.
My guess is that the day you stop dancing around and explicitly admit that the sacraments are not needed for salvation, that one can make it to heaven without any of them and therefore without the Church, will be the day you wake up.
We know that you and all NSAAers do not believe that the road to hell is the one that's paved with good intentions, not the road to heaven, but if you could believe it, that would be big step in the right direction for you.
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
-
"you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire"
...could that be whole and entire by desire?.....
No.
-
You are wrong. Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught. If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.
Hmmm, let's see:
1) Trent taught whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.
You say salvation is rewarded without any sacrament at all, therefore you are, per Trent, anathema.
2)Trent taught that whoever says the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; is anathema.
Here again, you say "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire", you are saying the sacrament is optional, therefore once again, per Trent, you are anathema.
Certainly we can agree that the above 2 bullet points are indisputable evidence that per Trent, you are anathema.
When asked why you refuse to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, you answer that "you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire". So according to you, the Church, wholly and entirely refuses to defend the necessity of the sacraments for our hope of salvation.
My guess is that the day you stop dancing around and explicitly admit that the sacraments are not needed for salvation, that one can make it to heaven without any of them and therefore without the Church, will be the day you wake up.
We know that you and all NSAAers do not believe that the road to hell is the one that's paved with good intentions, not the road to heaven, but if you could believe it, that would be big step in the right direction for you.
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
Say what?
Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
-
-
Ladislaus wrote:
Yes, there can be doubt. There's actually no reasonable way to reconcile Trent with your interpretation of it. I've pointed this out multiple times now, but you constantly ignore my arguments. NOT ONE PERSON has offered a refutation of my arguments regarding the correct interpretation of Trent. I'm going to go ahead and write up a lengthy, thorough study of the treatise on justification just to refute this nonsense and also so that I can just link to it in the future and not have to keep retyping everything.
You really should not write "a lengthy, thorough study of the treatise on justification." You do not have the training to deal with such complex topics. The Doctors of the Church and the dogmatic theologians have already explained this matter in depth. You are not going to do any better than them, rather, from your previous posts, all you will accomplish is to proliferation of the heresy of denying Baptism of Desire.
If you ever come to your senses, you will deeply regret your attack against Catholic doctrine, and the harm that your public writing has done to souls.
Ambrose wrote:
The teaching of Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the Council, and this is why St. Alphonsus gives it the note of de fide.
Ladislaus wrote:
St. Alphonsus thought it was taught by Trent. He can assign de fide to it all he wants, but that doesn't make it de fide. Theologians commonly disagree about the theological note to be assigned to certain teachings. We saw that, for instance, in the dispute about the infallibility of canonizations, where opinions on the theological note were all over the map.
Moreover, Ambrose, we have pointed out that your interpretation of BoD and its extension to Catholics is in fact tantamount to a direct heretical denial of EENS and renders you schismatic because then you have no theological basis whatsoever to reject the teachings of Vatican II.
I have big news for you: St. Alphonsus was much smarter than you, he was highly trained and commissioned to write on matters of theology, and he understood this better than you. You are an untrained layman, St. Alphonsus was a master theologian, and given the title, Doctor of the Church.
St. Alphonsus gave the note of de fide to Baptism of Desire for a reason: because Baptism of Desire is de fide. If you reject it, you profess heresy, and if you are culpable, (not ignorant) then you are a heretic and have severed yourself from the Catholic Church.
I hope for your sake that you are ignorant, I truly hope that you will not go to Hell.
-
Ambrose wrote:
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
Stubborn wrote:
Say what?
Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is not an option. Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.
Ambrose wrote:
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
Stubborn wrote:
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
-
Their best argument video (opinion) rests in the following:
St Thomas
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм17.htm
-
Ambrose wrote:
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
Stubborn wrote:
Say what?
Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is not an option. Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.
Ambrose wrote:
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
Stubborn wrote:
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Unreal. You are really a piece of work.
Trent: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose: The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is necessary, that is, not optional unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Trent CANON IV.-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.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, not superfluous; and that, with or without them, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose aptly (and repeatedly) demonstrates how error becomes dogma and dogma error.
-
Ambrose wrote:
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
Stubborn wrote:
Say what?
Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is not an option. Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.
Ambrose wrote:
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
Stubborn wrote:
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Unreal. You are really a piece of work.
Trent: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose: The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is necessary, that is, not optional unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Trent CANON IV.-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.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, not superfluous; and that, with or without them, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose aptly (and repeatedly) demonstrates how error becomes dogma and dogma error.
Can you read? You cited Canon IV which says:
CANON IV.-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.
-
Ambrose wrote:
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
Stubborn wrote:
Say what?
Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is not an option. Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.
Ambrose wrote:
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
Stubborn wrote:
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Unreal. You are really a piece of work.
Trent: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose: The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is necessary, that is, not optional unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Trent CANON IV.-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.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, not superfluous; and that, with or without them, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose aptly (and repeatedly) demonstrates how error becomes dogma and dogma error.
Can you read? You cited Canon IV which says:
CANON IV.-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.
Yes, I can read and comprehend, my post stands.
Do you see any words outside of "or without the desire thereof"?
Your misreading of the canon makes the sacrament an "either or" option. You are doing it purposely to reduce the canon to a meaningless formula.
Did you read the other canon that states the sacrament is not optional and that the sacrament is necessary unto salvation? Outside of repeating your mantra: "the sacrament is necessary in fact or desire", how is it that you are able to convince yourself to ignore that entire canon?
Did you read the first part of canon IV that states the sacraments are necessary? How is it you are able to convince yourself to ignore the first part?
Do you comprehend that a BOD is not a sacrament at all, and that by repeating your mantra: "the sacrament is necessary in fact or desire", that you are explicitly insisting that the sacrament is optional and in doing so renders canon V completely null?
If you keep repeating your mantra while leaving off the last two words, you will cure yourself, those last two words are your killer.
-
Stubborn,
Why won't you reply to my post:
These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.
-
Because I do not see how it fits into the debate.
-
St. Thomas is not the binding teaching authority of Christ and His Church. He held an erroneous opinion on BOD (just as he had an erroneous view on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady). His mistaken belief on this matter not considered heresy though since he died in 1274 BEFORE the Church has defined the necessity of Baptism of water for salvation in the Councils of Florence and Trent.
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even one single of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but by divine mandate, the interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures and depositary of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church ALONE is the entrance to salvation; she ALONE, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of Truth".
-
There is no doubt that the Church has tolerated the teachings of BOD and BOB. That is not the argument. Just as there is not infallible teaching on BOD / BOB, there is not a solemn condemnation of them either. BOD/BOB (for cathechumens and martyrs ONLY) have been accepted theories that belong to the realm of theological speculation. Never before they posed a real thread to Church dogma until Modernism and perhaps the Church saw no need to comdemn them.
There is only one reason that BOD/BOB has become an issue nowadays: It is the loophole that liberal modernists use in order to justify the heresy of invincible ignorance and the salvation for non-Catholics. It is because of the modern abuse of BOD (which was only permitted for catechumens ONLY) into a full blown denial of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus salutary dogma, that a careful re-examination of the matter is very much necessary.
Even St. Thomas himself states that Faith in truths revealed by God is absolutely necessary for salvation. This faith must be explicit. Implicit desire does not suffice.
"After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are “bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, “are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
-
Because I do not see how it fits into the debate.
Stubborn,
It is probably because St. Thomas clearly teaches Baptism of Blood and Repentance.
I believe the biggest misunderstanding is the other effect of the sacraments, which is the character (See Summa question 63) in addition to the sacrament itself (question 66) and the definition (question 60).
Now at this junction one must ask a question, did the Council of Trent agree with St. Thomas? Or do I go down the road with Dimonds and manifest that St Thomas was wrong?
Dimondism is an error, recognizable through their straw man arguments, as their latest video claims. They accuse the Saints of a position they do not hold, and act as though they have refuted it. Imo, most people, if not all, adhere to some teaching of the Dimonds and end up hoodwinked.
I see what you are saying and why Jehanne posted the quote from the council. For me, I was thinking more along the lines of St. Augustine's and St. Ambrose's teachings.
Some points to note in addition to Cantarella's replies.......
First, even per LoT's signature, the great St. Thomas himself said:
"If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." I think that if those who continually quote St. Thomas' teaching on a BOD emulated what he said above, they would cease referencing him and a BOD as though a BOD is dogma.
Next, I think an error that St. Thomas made is that he did not add some type of disclaimer or warn / condemn against the future possibilities of his teaching being used as it is these days - to have otherwise faithful Catholics preaching salvation is assured to anyone presumed to have some vague desire for baptism at their death.
The Dimonds are frauds. Personally, I think I may have read a total of about one page of what they have written - though I have read many snips of theirs on forums such as this one, I know enough about them to know they are a dangerous pair, even for those times when they speak the truth it is best to seek the truth elsewhere.
Finally, the Council of Trent disagreed with St. Thomas in it's canons - as Trent and Trent's catechism explains those famous few words that NSAAers cling to, "or without the desire thereof" to mean one must not only be baptized, one must also desire to be baptized and are not to be baptized against their will. Trent leaves no room for the exception of being saved via desire alone, but NSAAers will not accept this fact of the faith - often times they reference St. Thomas' teachings in support of their own error.
When understood the way NSAAers understand it, in direct contradiction to Trent, they maintain that reception of the sacrament is optional, it is an "either or" proposition, one must either receive it or they must desire it, those who die only desiring it have died due to circuмstances that either made it impossible for God to provide the sacrament or for whatever reason, God simply just did not provide the sacrament.
-
Ambrose wrote:
1. The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent. Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear. Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent. Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.
Stubborn wrote:
Say what?
Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is not an option. Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.
Ambrose wrote:
2. Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized. Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.
Stubborn wrote:
Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.
The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Unreal. You are really a piece of work.
Trent: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose: The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent. There is no option.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is necessary, that is, not optional unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Trent CANON IV.-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.
Trent according to Ambrose: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, not superfluous; and that, with or without them, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose aptly (and repeatedly) demonstrates how error becomes dogma and dogma error.
Can you read? You cited Canon IV which says:
CANON IV.-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.
Yes, I can read and comprehend, my post stands.
Do you see any words outside of "or without the desire thereof"?
Your misreading of the canon makes the sacrament an "either or" option. You are doing it purposely to reduce the canon to a meaningless formula.
Did you read the other canon that states the sacrament is not optional and that the sacrament is necessary unto salvation? Outside of repeating your mantra: "the sacrament is necessary in fact or desire", how is it that you are able to convince yourself to ignore that entire canon?
Did you read the first part of canon IV that states the sacraments are necessary? How is it you are able to convince yourself to ignore the first part?
Do you comprehend that a BOD is not a sacrament at all, and that by repeating your mantra: "the sacrament is necessary in fact or desire", that you are explicitly insisting that the sacrament is optional and in doing so renders canon V completely null?
If you keep repeating your mantra while leaving off the last two words, you will cure yourself, those last two words are your killer.
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.
-
I understand. So let me ask you a couple of questions.
If you have read a couple of my posts then you know that I support Baptism of Blood and Repentance (for catechumens only) and hold Suprea Haec Sacra as false and contradicting to EENS.
Does that make me a NSAAer?
If an adult has been Baptized by Repentance (this presupposes that this adult has received the supernatural virtues of faith, hope , and charity) does this adult receive remission of sins and sanctification (rebirth) prior to receiving the sacrament?
If yes why, if no why
Thanks
If anyone would like to give an answer that would be fine. If my understanding is wrong by all means help me out.
One does not cease to be a Catholic for believing BOD possible for catechumens ONLY. One is not a heretic for believing in BOD for catechumens ONLY. One becomes a heretic though when one believes in the heresy of invincible ignorance, indifferentism, and universal salvation.
The problem is that there is no Sanctifying Grace outside the Church. It is Baptism only what puts Sanctifying Grace into our souls for the first time. We all are born without it. Sanctifying Grace is a gift and no one has a right to it. That is why infants who die without being baptized cannot go to Heaven because they die without Sanctifying Grace. Baptism is the seal of justification.
Why there is so much modern controversy on the topic of BOD? it is only to justify the modern error of invincible ignorance and indifferentism, undermining the exclusivity of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the only possible salvific religion.
St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith. They are not saved and God does not prevent this by sending them a missionary. This is the place of invincible ignorance, simply an adequate means towards the selection of the Elect and the completion of the universe.
“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.
“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”
In view of the extent of the penetration of the modernist heresy within the structure of Holy Mother Church, the times call for a solemn re-statement, in the manner of the glorious popes, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Eugene IV of the divinely revealed and fundamental truth, contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition " There Is No Salvation Outside The Church".
-
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.
You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.
-
I understand. So let me ask you a couple of questions.
If you have read a couple of my posts then you know that I support Baptism of Blood and Repentance (for catechumens only) and hold Suprea Haec Sacra as false and contradicting to EENS.
How do you reconcile a BOB with Pope Eugene IV's bull, Cantate Domino:
".....not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Does that make me a NSAAer?
A "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament, no one disputes this. Calling a BOD No Sacrament At All (NSAA) is naming it exactly what it is - nothing. Hence, infidels who are assumed to have some implicit desire are rewarded salvation, thanks to nothing, save an assumed implicit desire. If you believe salvation is attainable via NSAA, then you are a NSAAer.
Since the end of last year, I have offered to all those who profess salvation via NSAA to do something that is strictly and only Catholic, I challenged (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29500&min=60#p0) them to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - among all the "heroic Catholics BODers" not even one taker in over 6 months. You'd think the boards would be over flowing with threads defending the necessity of the sacraments - but nope, not even one. Perhaps you are up to the challenge?
What's worse is the fact that these same NSAAers have continued to start thread after thread championing salvation via NSAA - and *that* is what they claim Catholic teaching is.
If an adult has been Baptized by Repentance (this presupposes that this adult has received the supernatural virtues of faith, hope , and charity) does this adult receive remission of sins and sanctification (rebirth) prior to receiving the sacrament?
If yes why, if no why
Trent's catechism, speaking about the sacrament of Penance, explains it like this.........
"By the Fathers of the Council of Trent, contrition is defined: A sorrow and detestation for sin committed, with a purpose of sinning no more. and a little further on the Council, speaking of the motion of the will to contrition, adds: If joined with a confidence in the mercy of God and an earnest desire of per forming whatever is necessary to the proper reception of the Sacrament, it thus prepares us for the remission of sin."
And again..........
"Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins."
Now they are speaking about Catholics - perhaps the penitent has been Catholic their whole life. If such a level of "Repentance" is that difficult for a Catholic to achieve, IMO a catechumen has less of a chance to achieve it.
Supposing the catechumen achieves it and is therefore justified, he, like the justified in the Old Testament, still has the stain of Original Sin which is only washed away through the sacrament of baptism.
There is no one in the state of justification who desires to be baptized who will die before he is sacramentally baptized. Whoever does not believe this has no faith.
Fr. Feeney said it best: "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."
-
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.
You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.
Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.
SJB, Myrna, Michael93, Sunbeam, myself and others have all scanned or compiled approved sources, and you will not submit.
You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire. Rather, you trust your own judgment over theirs.
You have not produced a single authority from the last millennium that in any way supports your arguments. The only support you claim is your private interpretations of papal teachings and the fathers, in which no approved source agrees with you.
-
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.
You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.
Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.
SJB, Myrna, Michael93, Sunbeam, myself and others have all scanned or compiled approved sources, and you will not submit.
You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire. Rather, you trust your own judgment over theirs.
You have not produced a single authority from the last millennium that in any way supports your arguments. The only support you claim is your private interpretations of papal teachings and the fathers, in which no approved source agrees with you.
One pope teaching infallibly is the foundation, not a dozen doctors whose teachings were corrected by infallible canons.
I must suggest again - - repeat the words of Trent 5000 times a day every day until you believe it - - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - do that and you will come to see how ridiculous all your anti-sacrament statements have been.
-
Your agenda has blinded you to read what you want to see. The Canon is clear, and it teaches Baptism of Desire.
You just keep saying that and yet you absolutely refuse to touch the weighty arguments I have made to the contrary. If it's "clear" in teaching BoD, then you should have ZERO problem refuting my arguments about it. In fact it's very clearly NOT teaching BoD.
Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.
SJB, Myrna, Michael93, Sunbeam, myself and others have all scanned or compiled approved sources, and you will not submit.
You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire. Rather, you trust your own judgment over theirs.
You have not produced a single authority from the last millennium that in any way supports your arguments. The only support you claim is your private interpretations of papal teachings and the fathers, in which no approved source agrees with you.
One pope teaching infallibly is the foundation, not a dozen doctors whose teachings were corrected by infallible canons.
I must suggest again - - repeat the words of Trent 5000 times a day every day until you believe it - - "the sacraments are necessary unto salvation" - do that and you will come to see how ridiculous all your anti-sacrament statements have been.
It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.
You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.
-
Your arguments have been refuted over and over and over.
You haven't even TOUCHED them; you haven't tried. That's because you can't refute them. You just repeat the same old tired gratuitous assertions from circular authority over and over again ... all of which have heretical premises.
-
It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.
You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.
What isn't true?
Are you claiming Trent does not teach that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation? Is that what you claim isn't true?
-
You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire.
None of these have ever EXPLAINED BoD ... and that's part of the problem. They merely SAY it exists. There's no actual theological evidence for it either 1) from a unanimous teaching of the Fathers (there are more who reject it than who hold to it) or 2) explaining how it derives necessarily from other revealed doctrine.
Consequently, there's ZERO proof that this has been revealed, and if it has not been revealed it's nothing more than an exercise in speculative theology. Period. End of story.
It's been shown how both St. Alphonsus' and St. Thomas' "explanations" of BoD are completely invalid; their claims that it doesn't remit all the punishment due to sin have to be rejected as erroneous. So where does it leave their theorizing about BoD? St. Robert Bellarmine simply said that it "would seem too harsh" to say otherwise but gave no other explanation for why he holds it.
You've got nothing to stand on except for your interpretation of Trent, and my arguments that you're interpretation is wrong are rock solid and you have been unable to touch them.
-
Isn't it ironic and incredibly dishonest for you to say that it's acceptable for a Catholic to reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation and yet at the same time attack those who have problems with his speculations regarding BoD? Why don't you attack those who reject St. Thomas' teaching regarding the necessity of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity or Incarnation? Why don't you attack those who reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation?
This all proves that your reasons for accepting BoD are purely emotional and not rational.
-
Think about Cornelius in Acts.
You just read into the episode of Cornelius what you want to see there. It just shows the activity of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius. If you read Trent on Justification it speaks of the Holy Spirit as disposing the soul to receive Baptism. This was shown to St. Peter to overcome his tendency towards judaizing. It is absolutely no proof of BoD.
-
Just as Jansenism was condemned, I believe if we had a Catholic Pope he would have already put out a Bull condemning the other sects.
Another sedevacantist against the strict adherence to EESN?
No wonder :rolleyes:
-
It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.
You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.
What isn't true?
Are you claiming Trent does not teach that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation? Is that what you claim isn't true?
As Trent teaches, the sacraments or the desire for them....
If you deny this, you are accepting heresy against the Catholic Faith.
-
You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire.
None of these have ever EXPLAINED BoD ... and that's part of the problem. They merely SAY it exists. There's no actual theological evidence for it either 1) from a unanimous teaching of the Fathers (there are more who reject it than who hold to it) or 2) explaining how it derives necessarily from other revealed doctrine.
Consequently, there's ZERO proof that this has been revealed, and if it has not been revealed it's nothing more than an exercise in speculative theology. Period. End of story.
It's been shown how both St. Alphonsus' and St. Thomas' "explanations" of BoD are completely invalid; their claims that it doesn't remit all the punishment due to sin have to be rejected as erroneous. So where does it leave their theorizing about BoD? St. Robert Bellarmine simply said that it "would seem too harsh" to say otherwise but gave no other explanation for why he holds it.
You've got nothing to stand on except for your interpretation of Trent, and my arguments that you're interpretation is wrong are rock solid and you have been unable to touch them.
But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them. For some strange reason you think you know better than them, but that is wrong, you and I are nobodies, the Doctors of the Church are the ones to learn from.
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
-
But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them.
No, they don't. They simply float it as speculative opinion, based on no solid theological reasoning.
-
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
There is one reason ONLY that BOD has any importance at all for the modernists and everyone knows it: It is the only loophole the liberals can use to justify invincible ignorance and thus, salvation for non-Catholics. If it was not because of this, nobody would be even talking about the permitted teaching of BOD (for catechumens only) in the first place.
No Father of the Church taught anything about saving efficacy of a baptism of "desire". St Augustine was the only one to speculate specifically about the saving efficacy of BOD and there is proof that even he himself changed his earlier position on this subject in the anti-Pelagian writings, to say that even catechumens are damned if they are not baptized before death.
-
But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them.
No, they don't. They simply float it as speculative opinion, based on no solid theological reasoning.
This is false:
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and 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.”
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html
It's just absurd to claim that St Alphonsus could be going around touting a mere "theological opinion" as being de fide without so much a peep from the Chair of Peter. No doubt exists whatsoever that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are de fide dogmas of the Catholic Church. Now, if you want to say, as a theological opinion, that the One and Triune God will, through miraculous means and/or the ministry of angels, provide each and every one of His Elect with the sacramental character of Baptism, then that's fine, but understand, such is your opinion.
P.S. I have no idea why this post is getting auto-edited; see the above link for the full quote.
-
It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.
You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.
What isn't true?
Are you claiming Trent does not teach that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation? Is that what you claim isn't true?
As Trent teaches, the sacraments or the desire for them....
If you deny this, you are accepting heresy against the Catholic Faith.
Trent teaches the sacraments are a necessity - you are the one mutilating the de fide teaching by adding your version of the exception: "or the desire for them."
You repeatedly reject, after being repeatedly taught what "or without the desire thereof" means. Trent's catechism explains it beautifully yet you reject it repeatedly.
Trent teaches the sacrament is not optional, you say Trent teaches the sacrament is optional. You also say Trent teaches that the sacrament is both necessary and optional. Not sure where bowler is but he summed you up with the correct definition - insane.
-
This is false:
Where in your citation is there any theological explanation of BoD? As with EVERY SINGLE BoD assertion I've EVER seen, the theologian in question simply SAYS it exists. There's absolutely no proof that God has ever willed to save anyone by so-called Baptism of Desire. There's no proof that this has been revealed by God. There's no proof that BoD derives from other revealed doctrines. That's beyond dispute.
Once you have made up BoD, then you start making things up ABOUT BoD.
1) that BoD doesn't remit all temporal punishment due to sin (that's proven erroneous according to Church teaching)
2) that BoD doesn't impart the Christian character upon the soul (well, I say that, if there is a BoD, then it must impart the Christian character because this character is essential for being reborn in and incorporated in Christ). Who's right? No one knows because we'd both be just MAKING IT UP.
BOD IS MADE UP OUT OF THIN AIR DUE TO NO OTHER REASON THAN SPECULATION ROOTED IN THIS ARROGANT NOTION THAT WE CAN TELL GOD WHAT IS FAIR AND WHAT ISN'T.
If BoD exists, God has NOT revealed it to us. If God has willed to save people by this means, then who am I to argue? But God does not ALLOW BoD due to some imagined impossibility. That too is heretical. It would not only be possible but downright easy for God to bring Baptism to ANY of His elect, so it leaves the only remaining possibility that God would actually WILL that some of His elect be saved by BoD. Why would He do that after instituting the Sacrament of Baptism and solemnly declaring it to be necessary for salvation? God could raise up "children of Abraham" from the stones around a dying person in order to administer the Sacrament of Baptism. You hypocritically claim that God cannot be bound by His Sacraments (thereby rejecting Trent's dogmatic teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments) but then claim that God can be bound by "impossibility".
I've given you ample opportunity to retract your heretical rejection of Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (even without your having to reject BoD), but you REFUSE to do it, constantly insisting that people can be saved without the Sacrament. You have been warned but you do not care about your heresy, the Protestant heresy that Trent was condemning. All you have to do is to say via BoB or BoD people receive the Sacrament in voto rather than to say that they are saved without the Sacrament. But you won't do it.
You are all just fools and you all promote BoD ultimately because you refuse to accept EENS.
Since most of you don't stop at BoD for catechumens but extend it to all manner of non-Catholics and thereby hypocritically reject the teaching of St. Thomas regarding the need for explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation, while trumpeting the authority of St. Thomas regarding BoD.
You're not honest. Underlying your adherence to BoD is a REFUSAL TO ACCEPT EENS.
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
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.
-
Why would you deflect attention away from your error that has been condemned by the Church? Then make a false assertion that I deny EENS?
29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted. Condemned by Pope Clement XI
There are two kinds of grace: Sanctifying and Actual. Notice:
The problem is that there is no Sanctifying Grace outside the Church. It is Baptism only what puts Sanctifying Grace into our souls for the first time. We all are born without it. Sanctifying Grace is a gift and no one has a right to it. That is why infants who die without being baptized cannot go to Heaven because they die without Sanctifying Grace.
The truth is that actual grace, which comes from the Catholic Church, is given to those outside the Catholic Church (non-Catholics) to effect their conversion. Whereas sanctifying grace is given only to those inside the Catholic Church, (validly baptized Catholics).
The attempt to bring out the condemned Jansenist errors by Pope Clement XI in Unigenitus, 1713, is therefore invalid, since there is indeed grace outside the Church, but only actual, not sanctifying.
-
I did? I was simply showing that grace exists outside of the Church.
Yes, you did, in citing Cornelius as a proof for BoD. Yes, it's GRACE that stirs the soul towards justification, but there's no proof whatsoever in the Cornelius episode that he was in a state of sanctifying grace.
Trent clearly teaches that an adult disposed properly, as in Cornelius, and who has received the gifts of faith, hope and charity are perfectly united to Christ and become a living member of His body.
Wrong. Ask your fellow BoDers about this; they are NOT "members" of His Body.
This is prior to the sacrament being administered. Does this member have the indelible mark? NO! Do they have the character or seal? YES!
You are the first BoDer who's actually said that BoD confers the a character or seal. No BoDer theologian holds this. If I were to be persuaded of the existence of BoD, I would argue also that this confers the seal or the character.
But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt.... Do you understand what this means?
Yeah, what it means is that you're reducing the necessity of Baptism to a necessity of precept rather than a necessity of means ... and no Catholic theologians holds this.
Hopefully you can see how Baptism BY Desire (vow, oath, swearing) justifies a man, but not completely, but nonetheless if they died in this state they are saved.
Partial rebirth or regeneration doesn't exist. Trent teaches that there can be no justification without rebirth or regeneration, and the grace of regeneration is also dogmatically defined as putting the soul into a state where nothing is lacking for immediate entrance into heaven.
If anyone accuses me of holding this vow (desire) can apply to someone who is invincibly ignorant, or as "they" say an adult who would make the vow if it were know to them (as mostly every traditional priest claims) bears false testimony.
Well, I'm happy that you at least acknowledge this much; most (99%) of BoDers do not.
-
If I may,
Think about Cornelius in Acts.
You just read into the episode of Cornelius what you want to see there. It just shows the activity of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius. If you read Trent on Justification it speaks of the Holy Spirit as disposing the soul to receive Baptism. This was shown to St. Peter to overcome his tendency towards judaizing. It is absolutely no proof of BoD.
(1) I did? I was simply showing that grace exists outside of the Church.
(2) Trent clearly teaches that an adult disposed properly, as in Cornelius, and who has received the gifts of faith, hope and charity are perfectly united to Christ and become a living member of His body. This is prior to the sacrament being administered. Does this member have the indelible mark? NO! Do they have the character or seal? YES!
Does this adult deny the sacrament or the necessity of the sacrament? Please don't say yes.
Does this adult deny that water must be used, or the words of Christ in John 3:5? Please don't say yes.
Open your eyes and understand how Trent reads in chapter XI:
But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt.... Do you understand what this means?
(3) Hopefully you can see how Baptism BY Desire (vow, oath, swearing) justifies a man, but not completely, but nonetheless if they died in this state they are saved.
If anyone accuses me of holding this vow (desire) can apply to someone who is invincibly ignorant, or as "they" say an adult who would make the vow if it were know to them (as mostly every traditional priest claims) bears false testimony.
1: Grace exists outside the church to move men to her. Sanctifying grace only exists in the church because the 7 Sacraments are man's only material interface with sanctifying grace.
2: As Ladislaus stated above, Trent does not teach this. You cannot show where it does so.
3: The proposition that justification is had before baptism is the 33rd error of Michael du Bay and as such was condemned by pope St. Pius V in Ex omnibus afflictionibus. (Denzinger 1033). Condemned is that " A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained." So condemned is the error that even the catechumen fulfills the law before baptism and St. Pius added the interjection " which is only received in the laver of baptism" to leave no doubt as to why du Bay's proposition was wrong.
I hope I've helped here,
and please correct me if I am wrong.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
If I may,
Think about Cornelius in Acts.
You just read into the episode of Cornelius what you want to see there. It just shows the activity of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius. If you read Trent on Justification it speaks of the Holy Spirit as disposing the soul to receive Baptism. This was shown to St. Peter to overcome his tendency towards judaizing. It is absolutely no proof of BoD.
(1) I did? I was simply showing that grace exists outside of the Church.
(2) Trent clearly teaches that an adult disposed properly, as in Cornelius, and who has received the gifts of faith, hope and charity are perfectly united to Christ and become a living member of His body. This is prior to the sacrament being administered. Does this member have the indelible mark? NO! Do they have the character or seal? YES!
Does this adult deny the sacrament or the necessity of the sacrament? Please don't say yes.
Does this adult deny that water must be used, or the words of Christ in John 3:5? Please don't say yes.
Open your eyes and understand how Trent reads in chapter XI:
But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt.... Do you understand what this means?
(3) Hopefully you can see how Baptism BY Desire (vow, oath, swearing) justifies a man, but not completely, but nonetheless if they died in this state they are saved.
If anyone accuses me of holding this vow (desire) can apply to someone who is invincibly ignorant, or as "they" say an adult who would make the vow if it were know to them (as mostly every traditional priest claims) bears false testimony.
1: Grace exists outside the church to move men to her. Sanctifying grace only exists in the church because the 7 Sacraments are man's only material interface with sanctifying grace.
2: As Ladislaus stated above, Trent does not teach this. You cannot show where it does so.
3: The proposition that justification is had before baptism is the 33rd error of Michael du Bay and as such was condemned by pope St. Pius V in Ex omnibus afflictionibus. (Denzinger 1033). Condemned is that " A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained." So condemned is the error that even the catechumen fulfills the law before baptism and St. Pius added the interjection " which is only received in the laver of baptism" to leave no doubt as to why du Bay's proposition was wrong.
I hope I've helped here,
and please correct me if I am wrong.
God bless,
JoeZ
Here's the text:
Condemned error: 33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n1000
The words are those of Michael du Bay and not those of Pope Pius V.
-
I'm with JoeZ on this one. That ["which is only received in the laver of Baptism"] appears to be a parenthetical insertion, because otherwise DuBay would have been saying that one has charity at Baptism and only after (both charity and Baptism) would there be remission of sins. That doesn't make any sense unless we read it as JoeZ suggests.
-
It is your private and erroneous interpretation of the infallible papal teaching that I have a problem with, not the papal teaching itself.
You can twist Trent and other papal teachings to mean what you want them to mean, but it does not make it true.
What isn't true?
Are you claiming Trent does not teach that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation? Is that what you claim isn't true?
As Trent teaches, the sacraments or the desire for them....
If you deny this, you are accepting heresy against the Catholic Faith.
Trent teaches the sacraments are a necessity - you are the one mutilating the de fide teaching by adding your version of the exception: "or the desire for them."
You repeatedly reject, after being repeatedly taught what "or without the desire thereof" means. Trent's catechism explains it beautifully yet you reject it repeatedly.
Trent teaches the sacrament is not optional, you say Trent teaches the sacrament is optional. You also say Trent teaches that the sacrament is both necessary and optional. Not sure where bowler is but he summed you up with the correct definition - insane.
A necessity in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches.
If you reject Baptism of Desire you are a heretic. Don't do it, Feeneyism is not worth it. Save your soul and embrace all Catholic teaching. Nothing is worth losing your soul.
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
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.
And Jesus Christ established a Church, which authoritatively interpreted John 3:5 to mean Baptism or the Desire for it.
You reject Catholic teaching at your own peril.
-
If you reject Baptism of Desire you are a heretic.
Methinks you are the heretic. So I guess we'll have to wait for the Holy Pope to resolve this and put you in your place.
-
But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them.
No, they don't. They simply float it as speculative opinion, based on no solid theological reasoning.
No, they are not speculating, they are witnessing to Catholic teaching. Of you reject this teaching you gravely endanger your salvation.
You are not allowed to reject even a single point of doctrine. Catholics must embrace all teaching, and not reject any.
-
If you reject Baptism of Desire you are a heretic.
Methinks you are the heretic. So I guess we'll have to wait for the Holy Pope to resolve this and put you in your place.
I was thinking the same about you. When a Pope comes, make no mistake, he will reaffirm Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire. Will you submit?
-
I'm with JoeZ on this one. That ["which is only received in the laver of Baptism"] appears to be a parenthetical insertion, because otherwise DuBay would have been saying that one has charity at Baptism and only after (both charity and Baptism) would there be remission of sins. That doesn't make any sense unless we read it as JoeZ suggests.
No, the entire quote is from DuBay.
-
I'm with JoeZ on this one. That ["which is only received in the laver of Baptism"] appears to be a parenthetical insertion, because otherwise DuBay would have been saying that one has charity at Baptism and only after (both charity and Baptism) would there be remission of sins. That doesn't make any sense unless we read it as JoeZ suggests.
No, the entire quote is from DuBay.
Do you have access to the original works of DuBay? If it's his quote, it's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen ... doesn't make any sense.
-
If I may,
I'm with JoeZ on this one. That ["which is only received in the laver of Baptism"] appears to be a parenthetical insertion, because otherwise DuBay would have been saying that one has charity at Baptism and only after (both charity and Baptism) would there be remission of sins. That doesn't make any sense unless we read it as JoeZ suggests.
It makes more sense when we qualify error 1033 33. with the following.
1031 31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
1043 43. In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin.
To say that a catechumen cannot have repentance unto justification and remission of sins is false. Now if a catechumen can have perfect charity, and one who has perfect charity would not be damned, then it must follow that a catechumen who has perfect charity is not damned, and is in a state of grace.
These are the condemned positions of Michael du Bay. By quoting them you are supporting the position that baptism (and therefore water) is necessary for justification.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Again please,
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
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.
And Jesus Christ established a Church, which authoritatively interpreted John 3:5 to mean Baptism or the Desire for it.
You reject Catholic teaching at your own peril.
Ambrose is correct to say the Church interprets John 3:5. Here it is in the Council of Trent, 7th session, the decree on the sacraments, the condemnations concerning 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." (My emphasis added.) Holy Mother the Church condemns the notion of any non-literal interpretation of John 3:5. This leaves us only to believe in it literally.
I hope this helps.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
I'm with JoeZ on this one. That ["which is only received in the laver of Baptism"] appears to be a parenthetical insertion, because otherwise DuBay would have been saying that one has charity at Baptism and only after (both charity and Baptism) would there be remission of sins. That doesn't make any sense unless we read it as JoeZ suggests.
No, the entire quote is from DuBay.
Do you have access to the original works of DuBay? If it's his quote, it's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen ... doesn't make any sense.
Consider this condemned error from the same Papal bull:
1031 31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
Now, please, explain that one.
-
Previously posted in regard to this topic of discussion...
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
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.
And Jesus Christ established a Church, which authoritatively interpreted John 3:5 to mean Baptism or the Desire for it.
You reject Catholic teaching at your own peril.
You who add to the Word of Christ or stray from it, do so at your own peril.
You who follow the CCC, and who can neither accept the Divine law of the Church's dogmas nor that which comes from the mouth of the God/man.
-
JoeZ,
Ambrose is correct to say the Church interprets John 3:5. Here it is in the Council of Trent, 7th session, the decree on the sacraments, the condemnations concerning 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." (My emphasis added.) Holy Mother the Church condemns the notion of any non-literal interpretation of John 3:5. This leaves us only to believe in it literally.
I hope this helps.
God bless,
JoeZ
This certainly does help Joe. This routs the sentimentalists proposition that Our Lord did not fully explain what he meant. On the contrary, in His infinite perfection He told us ALL of what we must know to be saved. To explore and speculate beyond that is impious and presumptuous.
-
Previously posted in regard to this topic of discussion...
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Nobody is arguing that BOB/BOD (for catechumens / martyrs ONLY) teachings have been allowed by the Church. That is not what the argument is about. The problem is the exploitation of the original teaching. It is that BOD is the "loophole" that the liberal modernists have used in order to undermine the dogma of EENS and the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as only means of human salvation. Catholics before were not even concerned about the concept of BOD / BOB for catechumens and martyrs only because they were harmless theories.
But now please ask if any BOD adherent actually limits it to a CATHECHUMEN ONLY. Guarantee the answer is NO. This is because what they really care about is having it possible somehow for non-Catholics to achieve salvation.
BOD-> Invincible Ignorance -> Universal Salvation -> Indifferentism
Again, we are not discussing BOD / BOB as it was speculated / taught in the past, but what it means today, that anyone outside the Church can be saved through last minute BOD, like if there was a shortcut to the Church Triumphant without actually being part of the Church Militant.
-
Feeneyism is another of those modern errors that just refuses to die, even though it has been so often definitively condemned by Popes, Catechisms, Canon Law, theologians, Saints, Doctors, the ordinary and universal Magisterium and finally the Extraordinary Magisterium itself.
The eminent theologian Fr. Marin Sola informs us, “From time to time certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He goes on, “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”
1. When Peter Abelard (who did not dare deny baptism of blood, but questioned baptism of desire), he was opposed by St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure. Feeneyites side with a known heretic, and oppose these Doctors. The Doctors of the Church are entirely unanimous after the Middle Ages, in teaching the doctrine, and stating it cannot be denied that souls are saved by baptism of desire. Pius IX binds Catholics to obey the common and constant teaching of theologians, since this is guaranteed to be immune from error by the ordinary and universal teaching authority of the whole Church, and as Fr. Cekada and others have shown, the teaching on Baptism of desire and blood is binding on all Catholics under pain of objective mortal sin.
2. Pope Innocent II and III teach Baptism of Desire in Encyclical letters, see Denzinger 388 and 413. After this point, the question is clearly settled, as teh unanimous consensus of theological teaching in all the Catholic schools shows. Continuing with the Ordinary Magisterium, Pope Pius IX makes reference to it in several places and teaches it expressly in QCM, where he clearly says the invincibly ignorant who strive to fulfil the natural law and are ready to obey God will be saved by the efficacious virtue of divine light, because God will not allow anyone not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Baptism of water is not a virtue, and therefore this doesn't refer to it. Pius XII teaches it in MCC and in another authoritative statement ((AAS: XLIII (1951) p. 84)) affirms that an act of love of God suffices for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace.
3. Every single Catechism on the subject (Roman Catechism of Trent, Douay Catechism, Baltimore Catechism, Catechism of St. Pius X) that treats the subject teach it as certain that we can be saved by baptism of desire. Example, St. Pius X's Catechism,
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
4. Even if it were not taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium that baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, the simple reality that it is so universally taught by the whole Church teaching for such a length of time would prove it belongs to the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
But there are two proofs from Trent. The first is that voto never refers to a mere disposition, but always to desire as causing the sacramental effect. In exactly, the same way, Trent says penance and the Eucharist can be received in voto.
But there is another proof, it is that Trent says that penance is necessary for salvation, in those who have fallen after baptism, just as baptism itself is necessary, in those who have not been regenerated.
But everyone knows, and most Feeneyites conceded, that penance is necessary in fact or in desire. Therefore, from this is it follows that baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.
The mind of the Tridentine Fathers is confirmed in the Roman Catechism, and the mind of the Church later clearly seen in Her own canons, "“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all" (Can 737)
5. As for sedevacantist Feeneyites, to be consistent with your principles, that Popes can never authoritatively promulgate heresy, mustn't you claim at least that St. Pius X, Benedict XV and indeed all subsequent Popes after this law were never Popes? Or, if you admit the authority of the Roman Catechism, as you must, maybe it's all Popes since St. Pius V?
The Roman Catechism clearly says the same danger present for infants - the danger of death - is not present for adults, because when an accident unforeseen to the catechumen makes it impossible to receive water baptism, desire avails him to grace and justice, meaning he will be saved when he died. If the Catechism wanted to teach Feeneyism, it would say, these persons are damned, since it was impossible for them to be washed in the salutary waters of the sacrament.
Feeneyites simply don't understand the rule of Catholic Faith.
-
Previously posted in regard to this topic of discussion...
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Nobody is arguing that BOB/BOD (for catechumens / martyrs ONLY) teachings have been allowed by the Church. That is not what the argument is about. The problem is the exploitation of the original teaching. It is that BOD is the "loophole" that the liberal modernists have used in order to undermine the dogma of EENS and the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as only means of human salvation. Catholics before were not even concerned about the concept of BOD / BOB for catechumens and martyrs only because they were harmless theories.
But now please ask if any BOD adherent actually limits it to a CATHECHUMEN ONLY. Guarantee the answer is NO. This is because what they really care about is having it possible somehow for non-Catholics to achieve salvation.
BOD-> Invincible Ignorance -> Universal Salvation -> Indifferentism
Again, we are not discussing BOD / BOB as it was speculated / taught in the past, but what it means today, that anyone outside the Church can be saved through last minute BOD, like if there was a shortcut to the Church Triumphant without actually being part of the Church Militant.
I'm not arguing about anything here, but merely posted a Scripture annotation for John 3:5 because it applies to representations made to the Council of Trent Decrees.
-
In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.
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.
( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )
Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Who is it that will not hear Christ?
Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.
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.
And Jesus Christ established a Church, which authoritatively interpreted John 3:5 to mean Baptism or the Desire for it.
You reject Catholic teaching at your own peril.
You who add to the Word of Christ or stray from it, do so at your own peril.
You who follow the CCC, and who can neither accept the Divine law of the Church's dogmas nor that which comes from the mouth of the God/man.
This has nothing to do with the CCC. Are you aware that Baptism of Desire has been taught over and over, century after century?
Do you believe in the private interpretation of scripture as other Feeneyites appear to do, or is it for the Church to interpret the words of Sacred Scripture?
Is this passage from scripture also to be taken literally, as the words state?:
8 *And if thy hand or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (St. Matthew 18: 8-9)
-
Previously posted in regard to this topic of discussion...
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
Nobody is arguing that BOB/BOD (for catechumens / martyrs ONLY) teachings have been allowed by the Church. That is not what the argument is about. The problem is the exploitation of the original teaching. It is that BOD is the "loophole" that the liberal modernists have used in order to undermine the dogma of EENS and the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as only means of human salvation. Catholics before were not even concerned about the concept of BOD / BOB for catechumens and martyrs only because they were harmless theories.
But now please ask if any BOD adherent actually limits it to a CATHECHUMEN ONLY. Guarantee the answer is NO. This is because what they really care about is having it possible somehow for non-Catholics to achieve salvation.
BOD-> Invincible Ignorance -> Universal Salvation -> Indifferentism
Again, we are not discussing BOD / BOB as it was speculated / taught in the past, but what it means today, that anyone outside the Church can be saved through last minute BOD, like if there was a shortcut to the Church Triumphant without actually being part of the Church Militant.
I'm not arguing about anything here, but merely posted a Scripture annotation for John 3:5 because it applies to representations made to the Council of Trent Decrees.
You are correct for posting this, because all Catholics who understood theology prior to this crisis understood and took for granted the fact that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is for this reason that it is cited so often among the theologians as teaching BoD.
Those on here who pretend that Trent taught their heretical view of denying Baptism of Desire have not a single source to support them. All they have is a twisting of Trent and other papal teaching, to mean what it does not mean.
-
Ambrose,
Is this passage from scripture also to be taken literally, as the words state?:
Quote:
8 *And if thy hand or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (St. Matthew 18: 8-9)
If any of the said members were to pose the loss of your salvation and eternal damnation....you bet!
This is an example of the modern mind's inability to accept the Gospel of our Lord as it is revealed, believing that those things which scandalize their sensibilities must have some meaning other than what they say.
-
1070 70. Man existing in the state of mortal sin, or under the penalty of eternal damnation can have true charity; and even perfect charity can exist along with the guilt of eternal damnation.
What's there to prove? Saint Thomas taught:
It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. (ST Ia IIae, q.89, a.6)
Ergo, an act of charity towards the Triune God can remit original sin and mortal sin.
-
Those on here who pretend that Trent taught their heretical view of denying Baptism of Desire have not a single source to support them. All they have is a twisting of Trent and other papal teaching, to mean what it does not mean.
Who will dignify this with an answer?
-
Do you see?
Sure, Saint Pius V is condemning the idea that sanctifying grace cannot precede sacramental Baptism.
-
Ergo, an act of charity towards the Triune God can remit original sin and mortal sin.
So you continue your HERETICAL denial of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-
Feeneyism is another of those modern errors that just refuses to die,
Perhaps that's because it's not an error but the truth, and the truth won't die.
-
Those on here who pretend that Trent taught their heretical view of denying Baptism of Desire have not a single source to support them. All they have is a twisting of Trent and other papal teaching, to mean what it does not mean.
Who will dignify this with an answer?
Not a single one of my arguments regarding the interpretation of Trent has ever been addressed. Consequently, they stand.
-
Please allow me to try again here.
Do you see?
Sure, Saint Pius V is condemning the idea that sanctifying grace cannot precede sacramental Baptism.
Thank you, it would seem that this would end the debate. Sadly it does not.
The Errors of du Bay(in red) are condemned by pope St. Pius V. These errors are listed in the Denzinger sources of catholic dogma. The numbers correspond to the previous mentioned work. The errors are listed as du Bay's propositions and are to be understood as condemned.
Therefore: When du Bay says (1070) "Man existing in the state of mortal sin, or under the penalty of eternal damnation can have true charity; and even perfect charity can exist along with the guilt of eternal damnation.", we must understand that is not true.We must hold that man in the state of mortal sin or under penalty of eternal damnation (which includes original sin) cannot have true charity. The second thought we must hold here is perfect charity cannot exist along with the guilt of eternal damnation.
When du Bay says (1031) "Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.", we must believe that perfect and sincere charity, which is from a pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned cannot be in catechumens or penitents without the remission of sins.
When du Bay says (1043) "In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin.", we must believe that in persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, or in catechumens before baptism, there is not true justification that is separate from the remission of sin.
When du Bay says (1033)" A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained." , we must believe that a catechumen does not live justly,rightly, and holily, and does not observe the commandments of God, and does not fulfill the law through charity before the remission of sins has been obtained because this can only occur through "the laver of baptism", hence the interjection.
Thank you for your time.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Those on here who pretend that Trent taught their heretical view of denying Baptism of Desire have not a single source to support them. All they have is a twisting of Trent and other papal teaching, to mean what it does not mean.
Who will dignify this with an answer?
Not a single one of my arguments regarding the interpretation of Trent has ever been addressed. Consequently, they stand.
They only stand in your own mind. Your arguments are not convincing any of us to deny our Catholic Faith.
-
Feeneyism is another of those modern errors that just refuses to die,
Perhaps that's because it's not an error but the truth, and the truth won't die.
Luther's errors also linger on almost 500 years later. I suspect, from all appearances, that some on here will perpetuate this heresy, even after a Pope comes again and corrects all of you.
Some of you are so convinced of your heresy, that it makes me wonder if you will be excommunicated rather than recant, and accept Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
You are not allowed to reject even one point of the Catholic Faith. The entire Faith must be believed, and not one point rejected.
-
Ergo, an act of charity towards the Triune God can remit original sin and mortal sin.
So you continue your HERETICAL denial of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
You continue your HERETICAL denial of Baptism of Desire.
-
Ambrose,
Is this passage from scripture also to be taken literally, as the words state?:
Quote:
8 *And if thy hand or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (St. Matthew 18: 8-9)
If any of the said members were to pose the loss of your salvation and eternal damnation....you bet!
This is an example of the modern mind's inability to accept the Gospel of our Lord as it is revealed, believing that those things which scandalize their sensibilities must have some meaning other than what they say.
You are too much! You should really spend time and learn your Faith. Our Lord was not teaching mutilation!
You need to slow down and learn your Faith from approved sources and stop privately interpreting Scripture and complex matters of theology.
Start by reading the Catechism.
-
You are not allowed to reject even one point of the Catholic Faith. The entire Faith must be believed, and not one point rejected.
Agreed. To deny one single point of the Catholic Faith is to deny completely the Divinity of it.
Then please do not reject that there is absolutely not salvation for non-Catholics. If you do, then you nullify the whole reason that Jesus Christ Our Lord came to earth in order to teach to His flock the New LAW of Salvation and save His Elect.
Salvation has never been from the human race, but always from Our Lord alone. Humans are not to change God's Laws. Pray to the Holy Ghost to really enlighten your mind about this.
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Truth never changes and either does error. The devil has absolutely no imagination.
"I am the Truth", Jesus assures us, "whoever is of the truth hears my voice" (Jh 14:6)
-
You are not allowed to reject even one point of the Catholic Faith. The entire Faith must be believed, and not one point rejected.
Agreed. To deny one single point of the Catholic Faith is to deny completely the Divinity of it.
Then please do not reject that there is absolutely not salvation for non-Catholics. If you do, then you nullify the whole reason that Jesus Christ Our Lord came to earth in order to teach to His flock the New LAW of Salvation and save His Elect.
Salvation has never been from the human race, but always from Our Lord alone. Humans are not to change God's Laws. Pray to the Holy Ghost to really enlighten your mind about this.
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Truth never changes and either does error. The devil has absolutely no imagination.
"I am the Truth", Jesus assures us, "whoever is of the truth hears my voice" (Jh 14:6)
If you deny Baptism of Desire, then you are a heretic.
-
You are not allowed to reject even one point of the Catholic Faith. The entire Faith must be believed, and not one point rejected.
Agreed. To deny one single point of the Catholic Faith is to deny completely the Divinity of it.
Then please do not reject that there is absolutely not salvation for non-Catholics. If you do, then you nullify the whole reason that Jesus Christ Our Lord came to earth in order to teach to His flock the New LAW of Salvation and save His Elect.
Salvation has never been from the human race, but always from Our Lord alone. Humans are not to change God's Laws. Pray to the Holy Ghost to really enlighten your mind about this.
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Truth never changes and either does error. The devil has absolutely no imagination.
"I am the Truth", Jesus assures us, "whoever is of the truth hears my voice" (Jh 14:6)
If you deny Baptism of Desire, then you are a heretic.
See? Always back to "Baptism of Desire", but that is just a sneaky name that in modern times what really means is "salvation for non-Catholics". BOD adherents never address the latter, but keep hiding behind "BOD".
-
You are not allowed to reject even one point of the Catholic Faith. The entire Faith must be believed, and not one point rejected.
Agreed. To deny one single point of the Catholic Faith is to deny completely the Divinity of it.
Then please do not reject that there is absolutely not salvation for non-Catholics. If you do, then you nullify the whole reason that Jesus Christ Our Lord came to earth in order to teach to His flock the New LAW of Salvation and save His Elect.
Salvation has never been from the human race, but always from Our Lord alone. Humans are not to change God's Laws. Pray to the Holy Ghost to really enlighten your mind about this.
There is absolutely no salvation for any human being outside actual baptized membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Truth never changes and either does error. The devil has absolutely no imagination.
"I am the Truth", Jesus assures us, "whoever is of the truth hears my voice" (Jh 14:6)
If you deny Baptism of Desire, then you are a heretic.
See? Always back to "Baptism of Desire", but that is just a sneaky name that in modern times what really means is "salvation for non-Catholics". BOD adherents never address the latter, but keep hiding behind "BOD".
No one is saved outside the Church. Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.
This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire, which is de fide. I find it amazing that a Catholic Teaching is allowed to be trashed and publicly denied on a Catholic Forum.
Catholics are not allowed to deny teachings of the Church, not even one. When a Catholic does this, it is called heresy.
-
Ergo, an act of charity towards the Triune God can remit original sin and mortal sin.
So you continue your HERETICAL denial of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
No, this is the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved:
These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.
END OF DEBATE.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм17.htm
It is you and not me who are denying the clear teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Pope, Vicar of God.
-
Ambrose,
The entire Faith must be believed, and not one point rejected.
Please remember this when next you plead the case for those who reject this True Religion in supposed ignorance.
-
Ergo, an act of charity towards the Triune God can remit original sin and mortal sin.
So you continue your HERETICAL denial of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
No, this is the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved:
These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.
END OF DEBATE.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм17.htm
It is you and not me who are denying the clear teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Pope, Vicar of God.
Right, and always remember: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Ambrose keeps repeating his mantra that the sacrament is both necessary and unnecessary - just depends which way the wind blows. One thing is for sure, it's necessary and unnecessary. :facepalm:
-
CANON V: If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est. (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)
-
CANON V: If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est. (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)
The guys who wrote that canon were the same ones who wrote this:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they did not see a contradiction, why do you?
-
Why is so hard to comprehend?
If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Does a catechumen saith it is optional, or that it is not necessary?
Does a Catholic saith mass on Sunday is optional, or that it is not necessary?
Now suppose a Catholic that has to travel 60+ miles misses mass on Sunday because he/she has car trouble halfway there? Or got stuck in bumper to bumper traffic due to an accident that shut down the freeway for 3hrs? Would he/she/family be in contempt in the eyes of God?
Well, based on the responses from feeneyites, dimondites, etc.... God would never let that happen, He would make sure that car trouble didn't occur, or the Catholic would never get stuck in traffic, etc... After all it is a precept that we must go to mass. So if God will make sure every ADULT gets water baptized because it is a command, then it must follow that all Catholics will never have an obstacle to mass every Sunday.
The example of the Mass (Holy Eucharist) does not apply because only three sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of Orders is necessary to the Church.
There are instances in which the Holy Eucharist is not necessary for salvation. For example, in the case of baptized infants or children before the age of reason that die and are infallibly saved. Therefore the words of Our Lord in John 6:54 are not taken literally by the Church because infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved.
On the other hand, John 3:5 is to be taken literally. Look at the two passages:
John 6:54 : “Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
John 3:5 : "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.”
Notice how in the first passage Our Lord addresses directly the people hearing Him. His words are intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. These people He was speaking to could eventually receive the Eucharist, and they had to in order to be saved. This still applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what the Church teaches.
But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.
-
But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.
The Scriptural annotation indicates the Church's teaching regarding John 3:5. I pray you read it this time.
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
(right-click and view image if you can't read it)
-
But in John 3:5, Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written.
The Scriptural annotation indicates the Church's teaching regarding John 3:5. I pray you read it this time.
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
(right-click and view image if you can't read it)
Uhm ...
NOT.
This indicates someone's interpretation of the Church's teaching regarding John 3:5.
Can we possibly insult Our Lord any more?
So, according to you, according to the Church, when Our Lord taught solemnly "Amen, amen, I say to you" that one must be born of water AND the Holy Spirit in order to be saved, what He REALLY meant was (I guess that a new translation of Douay Rheims is in order): "I really would like to emphasize how important it is" (the "Amen, amen I say to you") "that people get baptized. You can't enter the Kingdom of God unless you are born again of water OR ELSE AT LEAST the Holy Spirit."
-
Like Stubborn, I am still waiting for any BoDer to affirm Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. 99% of all BoDers express their BoD in heretical terms, claiming that people can be saved without the Sacraments. I have invited them on numerous occasions to begin, at least as a start, to use language that would indicate that BoD or BoB people receive Baptism in voto rather than the mushy quasi-heretical nonsense about how "charity" and "perfect contrition" save.
YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE DOING A SERVICE TO CHURCH TEACHING? WELL, KNOW THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU PEOPLE POST IT ONLY CONFIRMS IN MY MIND THAT BOD IS NOTHING BUT FOLLY, THE DOCTRINE OF MAN RATHER THAN THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE BOD POST HAS HERETICAL, ERRONEOUS, OR OTHERWISE NONSENSICAL AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY IMPLICATIONS.
I would find you much more credible if you did not involve yourself in heresy or error with every single post, whether by saying that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation (as per the Protestant heresy being condemned by Trent), whether by claiming that the Church's interpretation of EENS is the OPPOSITE OF EENS and that we are heretical if we take it literally, that Catholic are heretics for taking Church dogma at face value rather than being able to regurgitate five paragraphs of self-contradictory distinctions that not only turn the dogma into a meaningless tautological formula, but into the VERY OPPOSITE of what it seems to say, that God is not bound by the Sacraments but is constrained by impossibility, that Our Lord would solemnly declare the necessity of Baptism for salvation and yet God would will that people be saved by BoD rather than water Baptism. You guys believe in an invisible, gnostic, Protestant-like Church rooted in subjective disposition and not in the Traditional Incarnation Church of the Sacraments. Your faith has become thoroughly corrupted and undermined by all the modern errors, to the point that I have to ask whether you have any faith at all.
-
CANON V: If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est. (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)
The guys who wrote that canon were the same ones who wrote this:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
If they did not see a contradiction, why do you?
I see no contradiction - why do you? And why are YOU now a NSAA supporter?
What EXACTLY is in the teaching above that makes you think God is waiting to snatch the catechumen moments before receiving the sacrament anyway?
Does it or does it not teach that the danger of dying is not so great as the case with infants? In the teaching above, the Church is not concerned with the danger of the catechumen suddenly and unexpectedly dying unbaptized, why are you?
If you would have added the next 2 paragraphs, you would see that the delay is advantageous for the adult - not because if the catechumen dies unbaptized that he will go to heaven anyway - no, that is NOT taught ANYWHERE, much to the dismay of NSAAers.
Also look up the definition for the word "Avail" as in: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. - while you are at it, look up the definitions for the words "grace" and "righteousness" and let us know what they mean - especially if you can find anywhere that "avail" means "reward" and "grace and righteousness" means salvation.
Grace and righteousness are for the living - salvation is for those already dead.
What is it that made you stop believing that God will provide the sacrament to all who sincerely desire it before they die?
You are worse than NSAAers because at one time you knew better, at least I thought so.
Did you zoom in on the words "unforeseen accident" and "impossible" like NSAAers and, like NSAAers take it COMPLETELY out of context?
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day,could not make it that day because he was administering the Last Rites (remember those?) to one sick in the hospital 100 miles away, so the baptism needed to be rescheduled.
Read the rest of the catechism on the subject........
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
The part you should have quoted when the danger of death is real, is found in the next chapter - why didn't you post that chapter to show what the Church teaches when the Church is concerned that the danger of death is real?
In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once
Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith
-
As has already been demonstrated by the other NSAAers, there is no doubt that you can read into the teaching that which is not being taught - so your example is nothing new. Aside from yourself, you only serve to deceive others who are bent on salvation via No Sacrament At All, which means salvation outside the Church.
Try reading what is written and accept what is written as it is written, rather than reading while looking for loopholes to the necessity of the sacrament.
You are just as dishonest as the rest of the NSAAers here and have found yourself in like company with the likes of Ambrose, a notorious despiser of sacraments as the OP demonstrates - again - he especially despises the sacrament of baptism, and LoT, who, like Ambrose, believes the dogma EENS has nothing to do with salvation via NSAA.
Perhaps you should drop the facade already and post your own thread and champion the cause about how absolutely none of the sacraments are necessary - then claim that teaching is from the Church and is de fide just like the other sacrament despisers do.
-
How does one interpret “necessary”?
Here’s how St. Thomas answered the question:
Article 1. Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
Objection 1. It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 4:8): "Bodily exercise is profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (Question 60, Article 6). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.
Objection 2. Further, the Apostle was told (2 Corinthians 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
Objection 3. Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Romans 5:10): "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.
The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.
The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.
It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 1. Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.
Reply to Objection 2. God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.
Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Romans 6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."
Might one say the sacraments are necessary for “man” in the way St. Thomas explains it and yet allow for the possibility that some individual may be saved simply by the grace of Christ’s Passion and faith?
Seem to me that, in light of what St. Thomas said, one can say that the sacraments are “necessary” and also maintain that an individual could be saved without actually receiving the sacrament of baptism.
Putting aside for a moment what, as I believe has been pointed out, the clear teaching of the Catechism of Trent regarding catechumens.
DR
-
Might one say the sacraments are necessary for “man” in the way St. Thomas explains it and yet allow for the possibility that some individual may be saved simply by the grace of Christ’s Passion and faith?
No, absolutely not. St. Thomas' explanation of WHY they're necessary does not mean they are NOT necessary. All theologians teach that the Sacraments are necessary by a necessity of means.
-
avail
And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith, ... God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...
-
oh, wait ...
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.
Thus the proper understanding of the passage from the Catechism of Trent.
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.
Notice, both the CONFESSION AND THE BAPTISM are necessary for salvation, harkening back to Trent's teaching that both the laver AND the "votum" are required for justification, and harkening back to Our Lord's teaching that we must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit.
In fact, you see the language of St. Fulgentius reflected in the Council of Trent. Trent describes the votum (so-called "desire") as the PATH TO SALVATION, the disposition to Baptism, and then says that "JUSTIFICATION ITSELF" (St. Fulgentius says "SALVATION ITSELF") follows the dispositions in the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yet another solid argument for why Trent is teaching that BOTH the votum AND the Sacrament are required for justification.
I'll try to get a hold of the original text of Fulgentius at some point.
-
We know that St. Fulgentius' formulations regarding EENS were incorporated into the Church's dogmatic teachings.
Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels.
Cantate Domino[/i]]The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
-
.
Two weeks ago it took one day for this topic to seek its natural state of rest and morph into 'just another BoD thread', and it remains there, probably forever.
.
-
This indicates someone's interpretation of the Church's teaching regarding John 3:5.
I would like to make sure we are clear on your point.
Are you saying "someone" in this following list of Church authorities
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/bible-p2.png)
was never corrected for an error in this following book
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/bible-p1.png)
for the following Scripture commentary provided in annotation
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
In other words, are you really expecting me to believe you over the authority of the Catholic Church without any theological reference whatsoever other than your own conjecture? Seriously?
-
Might one say the sacraments are necessary for “man” in the way St. Thomas explains it and yet allow for the possibility that some individual may be saved simply by the grace of Christ’s Passion and faith?
No, absolutely not. St. Thomas' explanation of WHY they're necessary does not mean they are NOT necessary. All theologians teach that the Sacraments are necessary by a necessity of means.
And what do they mean by a “necessity of means”? I warrant almost every single one of them who hold that the sacraments are a “necessity of means” also assents to the Church teaching regarding BOD.
The sacraments are “necessary” to the body, man’s corporeal nature and the Church of Christ, and are a means of union, etc., as well as the means of grace. The sacraments both unite and save the members of the body. There would be no identifiable Church on earth without the signs of union, the sacraments and the pope.
This is the necessity of which St. Thomas and St. Augustine teach.
DR
-
YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE DOING A SERVICE TO CHURCH TEACHING? WELL, KNOW THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU PEOPLE POST IT ONLY CONFIRMS IN MY MIND THAT BOD IS NOTHING BUT FOLLY, THE DOCTRINE OF MAN RATHER THAN THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE BOD POST HAS HERETICAL, ERRONEOUS, OR OTHERWISE NONSENSICAL AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY IMPLICATIONS.
This people actually deeply hurt the Church Militant by their constant denial of EENS as written. What they do is providing a softer cushion for those outside the Church by inventing loopholes to the salvation doctrine, instead of affirming the clear infallible teaching, using whatever words seem appropriate for the occasion, lest we give false hope to our neighbor. There is no greater offense against charity than to tell a non-Catholic that he can be saved without converting to the true Church and/or without being baptized.
Not to free our neighbor from religious errors, when it is in our power to do so, is to show to being in error ourselves. Pope Gregory, "he whose duty it is to correct his neighbor when he is in fault, and yet omits to make the correction, makes himself guilty of the faults of his neighbor.". Pope Innocent III says of those whose duty it is to keep the deposit of faith pure and undefiled, "not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true doctrine is to suppress it."
-
Pope Pius IX , in his encyclical letter "On Promotion of False Doctrines" clearly states,
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863.] (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)
-
Pope Pius IX , in his encyclical letter "On Promotion of False Doctrines" clearly states,
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
[Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863.] (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/Pius_IX/On_Promotion_of_False_Doctrines,_August_10,_1863.html)
At least, here is the honesty to accept that the discussion is NOT and NEVER has been about BOD but actually INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE as means for salvation of non-Catholics.
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation.
The dogma of "Outside of the Church there is no salvation," means that no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace and furthermore, that in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith. Baptism is the entrance to this spiritual life and the gateway for this development. This preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. Every Catholic must know and believe the truths of Salvation as well as receive the Sacraments dispensed by the Church to receive the necessary graces.
According to the Angelic Doctor himself, who BOD adherents tend to cite, God in His mercy will lead the worthy, righteous, well disposed souls, to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation.
-
Do we really need a 15 paragraph definition of what "necessary" means?
That's the really amazing part of this whole thing - NSAAers seek out ways around learning what is infallibly taught - and no DecemRationis, I am not saying you are one of them, I am pointing out the lengths people will go through to render meaningless, the simple, clear, explicit, and literal infallible teaching that teaches the sacrament is not optional and that it is necessary unto salvation.
Look at how GJC twists the catechism's simple teaching - by the time he gets done with it, the original teaching loses all meaning *and* makes one's head spin.
Why can't: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. mean what it says?
Why do NSAAers have to make it say "the desire for baptism will reward salvation?" The person never even died for crying out loud - but does that matter to them - nope.
It is the exact same thing the NSAAers do with the dogma EENS in their effort prove it does not mean what it says as well.
-
Each of the below has been authoritatively promulgated and approved by several Popes, taught universally for ages in the Church, refusing to believe this teaching is an objective mortal sin. Show me any other group of professing traditional Catholics, other than Feeneyites, who refuse to believe something taught in every Catechism on the subject, authorized consecutively by several Popes.
"Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all
”
You Feeneyites are terribly confused souls in great need of help at very best, and the great problem is you seek continually to confuse others, without having any authority, and despising all authoritative teaching. Had you been so obstinate in your denial of the doctrine of baptism of desire and blood, you would have been excommunicated in two seconds under a traditional Pope like St. Pius X.
-
Do we really need a 15 paragraph definition of what "necessary" means?
That's the really amazing part of this whole thing - NSAAers seek out ways around learning what is infallibly taught - and no DecemRationis, I am not saying you are one of them, I am pointing out the lengths people will go through to render meaningless, the simple, clear, explicit, and literal infallible teaching that teaches the sacrament is not optional and that it is necessary unto salvation.
Look at how GJC twists the catechism's simple teaching - by the time he gets done with it, the original teaching loses all meaning *and* makes one's head spin.
Why can't: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. mean what it says?
Why do NSAAers have to make it say "the desire for baptism will reward salvation?" The person never even died for crying out loud - but does that matter to them - nope.
It is the exact same thing the NSAAers do with the dogma EENS in their effort prove it does not mean what it says as well.
Stubborn,
We all agree that the sacraments are “necessary,” yet some of us disagree. Obviously, it is legitimate in this context to inquire as to the true meaning of “necessity.”
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
St. Thomas directly dealt with the “necessity” of the sacraments in the Summa, and I posted the excerpt. I see no contradiction in holding to the “necessity” of the sacraments as understood by St. Thomas and also accepting the Church’s teaching on BOD - e.g., through catechisms. Indeed, St. Thomas affirmed both, the necessity of the sacraments and BOD. No matter your opinion of him, he wasn’t dumb, and wasn’t incapable of noting inconsistencies in theological or doctrinal positions - and there is none in holding to both, the “necessity” of the sacraments and justification through desire.
We can raise the discussion to a whole other level on the issue of “explicit desire” or “implicit” desire regarding the sacraments. But their necessity in terms of reception is, in my view, clearly disproved by Church teaching - as clearly noted in I think the other thread regarding penance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those who reject BOD here seem to be saying the reception of the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. It is that point that I think clearly has no foundation.
DR
-
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
Yes, everywhere you turn, BoD causes absurd contradictions.
Let's look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism:
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.
... but several paragraphs later
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
So, let me see.
Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means.
Necessity of means indicates that "salvation cannot be obtained even if lacking inculpably) -- i.e. not even if due to the inability to fulfill it
But "eternal ife life may be obtained" if it becomes a "physical or moral impossibility".
Blatant word for word contradiction.
I still love the citations from Ludwig Ott where he WORD FOR WORD contradicts himself on the subject of EENS, literally from one page to the next.
-
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
Yes, everywhere you turn, BoD causes absurd contradictions.
Let's look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism:
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.
... but several paragraphs later
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
So, let me see.
Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means.
Necessity of means indicates that "salvation cannot be obtained even if lacking inculpably) -- i.e. not even if due to the inability to fulfill it
But "eternal ife life may be obtained" if it becomes a "physical or moral impossibility".
Blatant word for word contradiction.
I still love the citations from Ludwig Ott where he WORD FOR WORD contradicts himself on the subject of EENS, literally from one page to the next.
I agree with you about the contradictions.
Now, show me where the Church ever said that the sacraments were a “necessity of means.” The Church has simply said they are “necessary.” This “necessity of means” stuff is the language of men, theologians. And men not speaking with the charism of the Holy Ghost contradict themselves, etc.
-
I agree with you about the contradictions.
Now, show me where the Church ever said that the sacraments were a “necessity of means.” The Church has simply said they are “necessary.” This “necessity of means” stuff is the language of men, theologians. And men not speaking with the charism of the Holy Ghost contradict themselves, etc.
I know of no magisterial teaching directly declaring this. If you wish to pioneer the position that Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept only, then you'll be the first; I know of no theologian who has ever held to that view. I suggest that you craft some real theological reasons for this and not just base it on the fact that you want there to be a BoD.
-
I agree with you about the contradictions.
Now, show me where the Church ever said that the sacraments were a “necessity of means.” The Church has simply said they are “necessary.” This “necessity of means” stuff is the language of men, theologians. And men not speaking with the charism of the Holy Ghost contradict themselves, etc.
I know of no magisterial teaching directly declaring this. If you wish to pioneer the position that Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept only, then you'll be the first; I know of no theologian who has ever held to that view. I suggest that you craft some real theological reasons for this and not just base it on the fact that you want there to be a BoD.
I’m not trying to pioneer any position; I accept the Church’s teaching. I have no ax to grind here. I have no teaching authority whatsoever.
I guess what I’m saying is “necessary” doesn’t necessarily mean “must be received.” No pun intended.
Since your argument seems to be premised on such a meaning, I take your argument to be unsound.
DR
-
Thomastic Philosopher:
Their own doctrine, because its not something that was based on magisterial teaching. For the past 300 years, we know for sure the doctrine has been accepted as a licit catholic opinion (exempting the heretical novel interpretations that some give it).
Hi TP. I'm trying to understand what you state. Do you claim that BOB/D is merely an opinion or do you agree with Ligouri that it is De Fide?
-
Since your argument seems to be premised on such a meaning, I take your argument to be unsound.
It's premised on that because that's what theologians universally teach regarding the necessity of Baptism, that it's a necessity of means. If you dispute that and claim it's "unsound" then you need to explain why these theologians are wrong. Otherwise your objection does not make any sense whatsoever.
-
Since your argument seems to be premised on such a meaning, I take your argument to be unsound.
It's premised on that because that's what theologians universally teach regarding the necessity of Baptism, that it's a necessity of means. If you dispute that and claim it's "unsound" then you need to explain why these theologians are wrong. Otherwise your objection does not make any sense whatsoever.
Yes sacramental baptism is necessary by Divine precept and by necessity of means but not by intrinsic necessity. Thus one not aware of its necessity through no fault of his own is not condemned on that account and can in fact be saved by baptism of desire if he dies inculpably ignorant, so long as he dies with a supernatural faith and perfect charity, which means he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.
-
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
Yes, everywhere you turn, BoD causes absurd contradictions.
Let's look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism:
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.
... but several paragraphs later
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
So, let me see.
Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means.
Necessity of means indicates that "salvation cannot be obtained even if lacking inculpably) -- i.e. not even if due to the inability to fulfill it
But "eternal ife life may be obtained" if it becomes a "physical or moral impossibility".
Blatant word for word contradiction.
I still love the citations from Ludwig Ott where he WORD FOR WORD contradicts himself on the subject of EENS, literally from one page to the next.
You need to learn to make proper distinctions which starts with accepting the Doctors of the Church as reliable sources, not to mention what a Pope writes in an encyclical. Hello?
-
Each of the below has been authoritatively promulgated and approved by several Popes, taught universally for ages in the Church, refusing to believe this teaching is an objective mortal sin. Show me any other group of professing traditional Catholics, other than Feeneyites, who refuse to believe something taught in every Catechism on the subject, authorized consecutively by several Popes.
"Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all
”
You Feeneyites are terribly confused souls in great need of help at very best, and the great problem is you seek continually to confuse others, without having any authority, and despising all authoritative teaching. Had you been so obstinate in your denial of the doctrine of baptism of desire and blood, you would have been excommunicated in two seconds under a traditional Pope like St. Pius X.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
-
Since your argument seems to be premised on such a meaning, I take your argument to be unsound.
It's premised on that because that's what theologians universally teach regarding the necessity of Baptism, that it's a necessity of means. If you dispute that and claim it's "unsound" then you need to explain why these theologians are wrong. Otherwise your objection does not make any sense whatsoever.
It’s unsound because the Church doesn’t use “necessity of means.” St. Thomas doesn’t use “necessity of means.”
What you are doing is taking a phrase that men have used and using their definitions against them. All very well and good. I agree with you they contradict themselves. I don’t have to accept their definitions, but what the Church teaches.
I find St. Thomas’s teaching on the “necessity” of the sacraments in accord with what the Church teaches. That definition works; the theologians with their “necessity of means” definition leads to contradictions or more “explanations.”
You need the use of “necessary” to mean “reception” which requires it to mean “necessity of means” (again, no pun intended - puns abound here!), a definition of theologians.
And yet you reject the same theologians, albeit finding their definition useful for your purposes.
As St. Thomas and I maintain the Church uses “necessary,” there is no contradiction between the “necessity” of the sacraments and BOD. I’ll go with St. Thomas’s definition, which squares with the Church’s use.
DR
-
Each of the below has been authoritatively promulgated and approved by several Popes, taught universally for ages in the Church, refusing to believe this teaching is an objective mortal sin. Show me any other group of professing traditional Catholics, other than Feeneyites, who refuse to believe something taught in every Catechism on the subject, authorized consecutively by several Popes.
"Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all
”
You Feeneyites are terribly confused souls in great need of help at very best, and the great problem is you seek continually to confuse others, without having any authority, and despising all authoritative teaching. Had you been so obstinate in your denial of the doctrine of baptism of desire and blood, you would have been excommunicated in two seconds under a traditional Pope like St. Pius X.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
-
Sorry, DR, but what you're saying doesn't make any sense. We're trying to discuss THEOLOGY here, and theology uses the Magisterium as a starting point. You sound like a Protestant.
-
Stubborn, Baptism is not optional, because it is necessary in fact or in desire, as the Church teaches in Her own canons, "“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all." What part exactly of this is unclear?
As for the discussion on necessity of means - two things have always and everywhere been indispensably necessary for salvation,
1. Justification, which is the translation to the state of grace.
2. Perseverance, which is being preserved by divine help in the state of grace until death.
So baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means because baptism (either in fact or in desire) alone effects justification. No one can be saved unless he is justified, therefore baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means.
Nonetheless, culpability is important, because those in bad faith or culpable ignorance cannot receive the baptism of desire, since baptism of desire means a true act of perfect love of God, and the will to do everything He commands. Those who have refused to be baptized, or stubbornly oppose the Church, cannot have this, because they do not will to do everything they know God to command.
Ignorance will not save. Even a merely natural desire to be baptized or to do the will of God or of Christ will not save. Only a supernatural act, in response to prevenient grace (which again is not operating on those culpably ignorant of the Church), of perfect love of God or of Christ suffices for justification.
The Church has always understood, and Pius IX is very clear on this above, that EENS means that those who obstinately oppose Her teaching or are stubbornly separated from Her communion cannot attain salvation. This and this alone is the true meaning of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.
In fact, Trent says contrition was at all times necessary for the forgiveness of sins. So, that means, if you believe the just of the Old Testament didn't all die without sanctifying grace, you have to hold that they were justified through contrition, which means it is not in any way intrinsically impossible, (quite the contrary) for a man to be placed in the state of grace by an act of perfect love of God.
-
Stubborn, Baptism is not optional, because it is necessary in fact or in desire, as the Church teaches in Her own canons, "“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all." What part exactly of this is unclear?
My objections on this count were against those who keep spouting the nonsense about how sanctifying grace and contrition, etc. work WITHOUT the need for Baptism, in direct contradiction of Trent. I've asked them to reformulate the WAY they state BoD so as to avoid the heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments. Most of them refuse to do it.
-
Do we really need a 15 paragraph definition of what "necessary" means?
That's the really amazing part of this whole thing - NSAAers seek out ways around learning what is infallibly taught - and no DecemRationis, I am not saying you are one of them, I am pointing out the lengths people will go through to render meaningless, the simple, clear, explicit, and literal infallible teaching that teaches the sacrament is not optional and that it is necessary unto salvation.
Look at how GJC twists the catechism's simple teaching - by the time he gets done with it, the original teaching loses all meaning *and* makes one's head spin.
Why can't: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. mean what it says?
Why do NSAAers have to make it say "the desire for baptism will reward salvation?" The person never even died for crying out loud - but does that matter to them - nope.
It is the exact same thing the NSAAers do with the dogma EENS in their effort prove it does not mean what it says as well.
Stubborn,
We all agree that the sacraments are “necessary,” yet some of us disagree. Obviously, it is legitimate in this context to inquire as to the true meaning of “necessity.”
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
St. Thomas directly dealt with the “necessity” of the sacraments in the Summa, and I posted the excerpt. I see no contradiction in holding to the “necessity” of the sacraments as understood by St. Thomas and also accepting the Church’s teaching on BOD - e.g., through catechisms. Indeed, St. Thomas affirmed both, the necessity of the sacraments and BOD. No matter your opinion of him, he wasn’t dumb, and wasn’t incapable of noting inconsistencies in theological or doctrinal positions - and there is none in holding to both, the “necessity” of the sacraments and justification through desire.
We can raise the discussion to a whole other level on the issue of “explicit desire” or “implicit” desire regarding the sacraments. But their necessity in terms of reception is, in my view, clearly disproved by Church teaching - as clearly noted in I think the other thread regarding penance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those who reject BOD here seem to be saying the reception of the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. It is that point that I think clearly has no foundation.
DR
Trent teaches the sacrament is not optional - that is necessary unto salvation - you want to make that out to say the sacrament actually is optional because necessary means something other than what it means?
Why EXACTLY can you not accept the infallible teaching without adding exceptions?
-
Do we really need a 15 paragraph definition of what "necessary" means?
That's the really amazing part of this whole thing - NSAAers seek out ways around learning what is infallibly taught - and no DecemRationis, I am not saying you are one of them, I am pointing out the lengths people will go through to render meaningless, the simple, clear, explicit, and literal infallible teaching that teaches the sacrament is not optional and that it is necessary unto salvation.
Look at how GJC twists the catechism's simple teaching - by the time he gets done with it, the original teaching loses all meaning *and* makes one's head spin.
Why can't: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. mean what it says?
Why do NSAAers have to make it say "the desire for baptism will reward salvation?" The person never even died for crying out loud - but does that matter to them - nope.
It is the exact same thing the NSAAers do with the dogma EENS in their effort prove it does not mean what it says as well.
Stubborn,
We all agree that the sacraments are “necessary,” yet some of us disagree. Obviously, it is legitimate in this context to inquire as to the true meaning of “necessity.”
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
St. Thomas directly dealt with the “necessity” of the sacraments in the Summa, and I posted the excerpt. I see no contradiction in holding to the “necessity” of the sacraments as understood by St. Thomas and also accepting the Church’s teaching on BOD - e.g., through catechisms. Indeed, St. Thomas affirmed both, the necessity of the sacraments and BOD. No matter your opinion of him, he wasn’t dumb, and wasn’t incapable of noting inconsistencies in theological or doctrinal positions - and there is none in holding to both, the “necessity” of the sacraments and justification through desire.
We can raise the discussion to a whole other level on the issue of “explicit desire” or “implicit” desire regarding the sacraments. But their necessity in terms of reception is, in my view, clearly disproved by Church teaching - as clearly noted in I think the other thread regarding penance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those who reject BOD here seem to be saying the reception of the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. It is that point that I think clearly has no foundation.
DR
Trent teaches the sacrament is not optional - that is necessary unto salvation - you want to make that out to say the sacrament actually is optional because necessary means something other than what it means?
Why EXACTLY can you not accept the infallible teaching without adding exceptions?
You beg the question as to what “necessary” means, and make an assumption it means “the reception.”
I gave you the whole post from St. Thomas on the “necessity of the sacraments,” and it doesn’t mean “reception.”
Do you want St. Thomas on the “necessity” of baptism? Here:
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
This is exactly what Trent teaches.
You do not understand the word “necessary.” This is a main reason why I posted St. Thomas on the “necessity” of the sacraments.
But you will not hear.
DR
-
Sorry, DR, but what you're saying doesn't make any sense. We're trying to discuss THEOLOGY here, and theology uses the Magisterium as a starting point. You sound like a Protestant.
A starting point?
I tell you what “sounds like a Protestant”: someone who decides an issue for themselves, or makes themselves the arbiter of meaning.
A Prot will follow his “pastor” until his pastor interprets Scripture differently than he does. Then he will rely upon the “Word of God” in rejecting the pastor; they will go to the “source” and say the “pastor” is wrong.
You do the same thing with Trent.
And what the theologians say regarding “necessity of means” for baptism isn’t limiting the concept of baptism to water. They agree with St. Thomas, probably almost to a man:
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Why do you rely upon the theologians only when it suits you? And even then you get them wrong.
DR
-
Ladislaus, faithful Catholics have never been required to know theology. Faithful Catholics have been required to learn their Faith from their Catechisms and profess it as they learnt it. Theology is nonetheless very useful for the Church and good for learned Catholics to study, as Pius IX says in Tuas Libenter, but only if we follow what the Church Herself has bound upon us in doing so, and you folks usually agree that you don't. What is the use of all learning if one uses it to assail the faithful, undermine their trust in the sources they learnt the Faith from, and in general to promote dissent and distrust against the teaching Church, and what She has taught for centuries?
For myself, I can say, supposing the Church taught that even unbaptized martyrs go to hell and suffer sense pains, I would immediately believe it. I believe everything the Church teaches infallibly simply because She teaches it, and IMO all Catholics should trust authority first over whatever arguments they have or think they may have. Let me ask, can you say the same, that if you were convinced the Church taught baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, you would unhesitatingly believe and confess it?
-
I tell you what “sounds like a Protestant”: someone who decides an issue for themselves, or makes themselves the arbiter of meaning.
Like when you reject the notion held by all theologians that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means?
Get lost. I'm done exchanging posts with you.
-
Ladislaus, faithful Catholics have never been required to know theology. Faithful Catholics have been required to learn their Faith from their Catechisms and profess it as they learnt it. Theology is nonetheless very useful for the Church and good for learned Catholics to study, as Pius IX says in Tuas Libenter, but only if we follow what the Church Herself has bound upon us in doing so, and you folks usually agree that you don't. What is the use of all learning if one uses it to assail the faithful, undermine their trust in the sources they learnt the Faith from, and in general to promote dissent and distrust against the teaching Church, and what She has taught for centuries?
For myself, I can say, supposing the Church taught that even unbaptized martyrs go to hell and suffer sense pains, I would immediately believe it. I believe everything the Church teaches infallibly simply because She teaches it, and IMO all Catholics should trust authority first over whatever arguments they have or think they may have. Let me ask, can you say the same, that if you were convinced the Church taught baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, you would unhesitatingly believe and confess it?
Well said. Let us not only do, but believe, according to her word.
DR
-
I tell you what “sounds like a Protestant”: someone who decides an issue for themselves, or makes themselves the arbiter of meaning.
Like when you reject the notion held by all theologians that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means?
Get lost. I'm done exchanging posts with you.
The “necessity of means” of "baptism” for them is not limited to “water.”
As I said, you don’t even use them correctly.
But I won’t tell you to get lost, for all that.
DR
-
In the treatises on baptism in almost any theological manual of the past several hundred years, one will find the treatment of the three baptisms under the heading of the necessity of baptism.In no case does the Catholic theologian speak of baptism of desire in such a way so as to have "still left the problem of salvation unsolved - salvation by Baptism of Desire."
All of these manuals (99.9% of which are written in Latin), like St. Bernard, quote the authority of Ambrose and Augustine, both saints and Fathers of the Church. They usually quote at least several other saintly authorities, as well as a few popes of the past two millennia in defense of the doctrine that there truly is a triple distinction of baptism, that this distinction is a Catholic distinction, that it is the constant teaching of the Church. The saints and Catholic theologians of the past millennium who write on the topic of the triple baptism are in agreement with Sts. Bernard, Ambrose, Augustine, including the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor of the Church. St. Thomas (d. 1274) wrote in support of the Fathers’ and Doctors’ teaching that there are three modes of baptism, in the Tertia Pars (Q. 66, A. 11; Q. 68, A. 2) of the Summa Theologica.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
This is how we are to understand the theologians regarding “baptism” as a “necessity of means."
-
Let me ask, can you say the same, that if you were convinced the Church taught baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, you would unhesitatingly believe and confess it?
Of course I would, absolutely without any hesitation. I wouldn't be a Catholic otherwise. To say no would make me a heretic / apostate.
-
If I were convinced that the Church taught Vatican II, then I would accept that also, writing off any misgivings I may have had with my own lack of understanding or misinterpretation.
-
Do we really need a 15 paragraph definition of what "necessary" means?
That's the really amazing part of this whole thing - NSAAers seek out ways around learning what is infallibly taught - and no DecemRationis, I am not saying you are one of them, I am pointing out the lengths people will go through to render meaningless, the simple, clear, explicit, and literal infallible teaching that teaches the sacrament is not optional and that it is necessary unto salvation.
Look at how GJC twists the catechism's simple teaching - by the time he gets done with it, the original teaching loses all meaning *and* makes one's head spin.
Why can't: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. mean what it says?
Why do NSAAers have to make it say "the desire for baptism will reward salvation?" The person never even died for crying out loud - but does that matter to them - nope.
It is the exact same thing the NSAAers do with the dogma EENS in their effort prove it does not mean what it says as well.
Stubborn,
We all agree that the sacraments are “necessary,” yet some of us disagree. Obviously, it is legitimate in this context to inquire as to the true meaning of “necessity.”
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
St. Thomas directly dealt with the “necessity” of the sacraments in the Summa, and I posted the excerpt. I see no contradiction in holding to the “necessity” of the sacraments as understood by St. Thomas and also accepting the Church’s teaching on BOD - e.g., through catechisms. Indeed, St. Thomas affirmed both, the necessity of the sacraments and BOD. No matter your opinion of him, he wasn’t dumb, and wasn’t incapable of noting inconsistencies in theological or doctrinal positions - and there is none in holding to both, the “necessity” of the sacraments and justification through desire.
We can raise the discussion to a whole other level on the issue of “explicit desire” or “implicit” desire regarding the sacraments. But their necessity in terms of reception is, in my view, clearly disproved by Church teaching - as clearly noted in I think the other thread regarding penance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those who reject BOD here seem to be saying the reception of the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. It is that point that I think clearly has no foundation.
DR
Trent teaches the sacrament is not optional - that is necessary unto salvation - you want to make that out to say the sacrament actually is optional because necessary means something other than what it means?
Why EXACTLY can you not accept the infallible teaching without adding exceptions?
You beg the question as to what “necessary” means, and make an assumption it means “the reception.”
I gave you the whole post from St. Thomas on the “necessity of the sacraments,” and it doesn’t mean “reception.”
Do you want St. Thomas on the “necessity” of baptism? Here:
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
This is exactly what Trent teaches.
You do not understand the word “necessary.” This is a main reason why I posted St. Thomas on the “necessity” of the sacraments.
But you will not hear.
DR
No, I hear you fine - it's just that you are not honest.
1) The canon is in Session 7; Canon 5 - It is under the heading titled: "The Decree on THE SACRAMENTS.
2) The actual canon is promulgated under the sub-heading :ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. (not "On the desire for the sacraments")
With all due respect to the greatest theologian ever, St. Thomas, he was wrong in your quote of his objection 3, just as surely as he was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. You are behind the times. Trent disagreed with St. Thomas - why do you continually quote him when Trent disagrees?
If you choose to prove me wrong, use the actual Canon to explain the actual Canon, not St. Thomas. Or do you insist the canon is not to be understood as declared? - If you insist the canon is not to be understood as declared, then you also are anathema per the First Vatican Council.
We see Trent is teaching infallibly about the actual sacraments - not the desire for them - do you agree?
If NSAAers would read the decrees in this light, they would be one step in the right direction. As long as they read the decrees with what their perverted idea that the canon is supposed to mean "in fact or desire", (God knows how they come to this conclusion) they will always seek to read into them what is not there.
-
Do we really need a 15 paragraph definition of what "necessary" means?
That's the really amazing part of this whole thing - NSAAers seek out ways around learning what is infallibly taught - and no DecemRationis, I am not saying you are one of them, I am pointing out the lengths people will go through to render meaningless, the simple, clear, explicit, and literal infallible teaching that teaches the sacrament is not optional and that it is necessary unto salvation.
Look at how GJC twists the catechism's simple teaching - by the time he gets done with it, the original teaching loses all meaning *and* makes one's head spin.
Why can't: their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. mean what it says?
Why do NSAAers have to make it say "the desire for baptism will reward salvation?" The person never even died for crying out loud - but does that matter to them - nope.
It is the exact same thing the NSAAers do with the dogma EENS in their effort prove it does not mean what it says as well.
Stubborn,
We all agree that the sacraments are “necessary,” yet some of us disagree. Obviously, it is legitimate in this context to inquire as to the true meaning of “necessity.”
This is common sense. I’m not quibbling. As I noted to ladislaus, the theologians he refers to as using the term “necessity of means” as to the sacraments in general also hold to BOD almost 100%.
St. Thomas directly dealt with the “necessity” of the sacraments in the Summa, and I posted the excerpt. I see no contradiction in holding to the “necessity” of the sacraments as understood by St. Thomas and also accepting the Church’s teaching on BOD - e.g., through catechisms. Indeed, St. Thomas affirmed both, the necessity of the sacraments and BOD. No matter your opinion of him, he wasn’t dumb, and wasn’t incapable of noting inconsistencies in theological or doctrinal positions - and there is none in holding to both, the “necessity” of the sacraments and justification through desire.
We can raise the discussion to a whole other level on the issue of “explicit desire” or “implicit” desire regarding the sacraments. But their necessity in terms of reception is, in my view, clearly disproved by Church teaching - as clearly noted in I think the other thread regarding penance.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those who reject BOD here seem to be saying the reception of the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. It is that point that I think clearly has no foundation.
DR
Trent teaches the sacrament is not optional - that is necessary unto salvation - you want to make that out to say the sacrament actually is optional because necessary means something other than what it means?
Why EXACTLY can you not accept the infallible teaching without adding exceptions?
You beg the question as to what “necessary” means, and make an assumption it means “the reception.”
I gave you the whole post from St. Thomas on the “necessity of the sacraments,” and it doesn’t mean “reception.”
Do you want St. Thomas on the “necessity” of baptism? Here:
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
This is exactly what Trent teaches.
You do not understand the word “necessary.” This is a main reason why I posted St. Thomas on the “necessity” of the sacraments.
But you will not hear.
DR
No, I hear you fine - it's just that you are not honest.
1) The canon is in Session 7; Canon 5 - It is under the heading titled: "The Decree on THE SACRAMENTS.
2) The actual canon is promulgated under the sub-heading :ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. (not "On the desire for the sacraments")
With all due respect to the greatest theologian ever, St. Thomas, he was wrong in your quote of his objection 3, just as surely as he was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. You are behind the times. Trent disagreed with St. Thomas - why do you continually quote him when Trent disagrees?
If you choose to prove me wrong, use the actual Canon to explain the actual Canon, not St. Thomas. Or do you insist the canon is not to be understood as declared? - If you insist the canon is not to be understood as declared, then you also are anathema per the First Vatican Council.
We see Trent is teaching infallibly about the actual sacraments - not the desire for them - do you agree?
If NSAAers would read the decrees in this light, they would be one step in the right direction. As long as they read the decrees with what their perverted idea that the canon is supposed to mean "in fact or desire", (God knows how they come to this conclusion) they will always seek to read into them what is not there.
Why don’t you quote the actual canon? Here’s the whole section:
DECREE ON THE SACRAMENTS
Proem.
For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. With this view, in order to destroy the errors and to extirpate the heresies, which have appeared [Page 54] in these our days on the subject of the said most holy sacraments,-as well those which have been revived from the heresies condemned of old by our Fathers, as also those newly invented, and which are exceedingly prejudicial to the purity of the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls,-the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, adhering to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consent of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought fit that these present canons be established and decreed; intending, the divine Spirit aiding, to publish later the remaining canons which are wanting for the completion of the work which It has begun.
ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.
[Page 55] CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that, in the three sacrments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn [Page 56] administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Now why don’t you show us how I am “not being honest”?
DR
-
Why don’t you quote the actual canon? Here’s the whole section:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
.
Now why don’t you show us how I am “not being honest”?
DR
Your dishonesty is obvious in that you twist the meaning of the above canon into meaning nothing at all.
The meaning of the above canon is that no one gets to heaven unless they are sacramentally baptized, whoever says otherwise is anathema.
NSAA can save no one.
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
Yes yes LoT, we all know you believe saints are above infallible decrees - what else is new? You do not even know what infallibility is.
Also, why are you mentioning Pius XII when you believe papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
Will you ever start a thread and champion defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? No, because you who despise the necessity of the sacraments cannot defend that which you despise - any more than I could possibly defend salvation via NSAA.
That should be your clue that you are lost and to tell you the truth, I am amazed that after more than six months now, you still cannot admit that it is an impossibility for you to actually defend the necessity of the sacraments. It demonstrates how strong your dishonesty reigns within you.
-
Let me ask, can you say the same, that if you were convinced the Church taught baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, you would unhesitatingly believe and confess it?
Of course I would, absolutely without any hesitation. I wouldn't be a Catholic otherwise. To say no would make me a heretic / apostate.
If I were convinced that the Church taught Vatican II, then I would accept that also, writing off any misgivings I may have had with my own lack of understanding or misinterpretation.
It's interesting, when you look at the worst parts of Vat.II you find that BoD fits in very well -- into the worst parts of Vat.II. As Pope St. Pius X said about heresy in Modernism, BoD sits in Vatican II errors as in its own house.
.
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
Yes yes LoT, we all know you believe saints are above infallible decrees - what else is new? You do not even know what infallibility is.
Also, why are you mentioning Pius XII when you believe papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
Will you ever start a thread and champion defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? No, because you who despise the necessity of the sacraments cannot defend that which you despise - any more than I could possibly defend salvation via NSAA.
That should be your clue that you are lost and to tell you the truth, I am amazed that after more than six months now, you still cannot admit that it is an impossibility for you to actually defend the necessity of the sacraments. It demonstrates how strong your dishonesty reigns within you.
Answer the following questions Stubborn, if you have any integrability:
1. I When did I say the saints are above infallible decress?
2. When did I say papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
3. When did I say I despise the sacraments?
4. Do you understand the quote from the Council of Trent better than Liguori or Pius XII did?
The above post shows that you are willing to make up things in order to validate your false beliefs. I'll recant if you can answer the above questions and show that I claim the saints [teachings] are above infallible decrees, that papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for me [of course Stubborn doesn't need anyone to interpret anything for him as he has a better understanding of theology than Aquinas, Bellarmine and Ligouri], show where I said that I "despise" the sacraments and either admit or deny that you [believe you] understand Trent better than Ligouri.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
Let me ask, can you say the same, that if you were convinced the Church taught baptism is necessary in fact or in desire, you would unhesitatingly believe and confess it?
Of course I would, absolutely without any hesitation. I wouldn't be a Catholic otherwise. To say no would make me a heretic / apostate.
If I were convinced that the Church taught Vatican II, then I would accept that also, writing off any misgivings I may have had with my own lack of understanding or misinterpretation.
It's interesting, when you look at the worst parts of Vat.II you find that BoD fits in very well -- into the worst parts of Vat.II. As Pope St. Pius X said about heresy in Modernism, BoD sits in Vatican II errors as in its own house.
.
It surely does. In Vatican II having the "religious sense" will suffice.
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
Ok. First, I thought you were referring to the first section, “On the Sacraments in General.” This is from the section “On Baptism.”
Yes, the section is talking about the sacrament. As it says, it is “not optional,” and explains that as “necessary to salvation.” All who know of the sacrament must receive it or make efforts to receive it (e.g., catechumens); it cannot be simply foregone as not necessary, as something “optional."
What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is “optional” or "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. We could look at the Latin (and should), but here's my sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death. Receiving baptism is not free or voluntary, and I don't know of a single Catholic who submits to the Church teaching on BOD who holds to the Church's teachings that says that. To recognize that BOD can justify or save without the sacrament in some circuмstances is not saying baptism is "free" or "not necessary for salvation." The only way you get your reading of this passage is if you take “optional” or "free" out, which is ridiculous, since the "not necessary for salvation" language is a gloss on that very word, “optional” or “free.”
However, you make Trent contradict itself. What is “necessary” as a “necessity of means” is the “grace of Baptism,” regeneration by the Holy Ghost. I posted a note on the “traditional Catholic belief” of the three baptisms which bring about regeneration.
Trent does not contradict itself, the and Catechism of Trent doesn’t contradict Trent:
Justification is:
a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Session 6, Ch. 4)
The Catechism of Trent says:
Necessity of Baptism ~ If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once ~ On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
As St. Thomas said regarding the “grace of baptism”:
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
No sacrament is necessary as a “necessity of means” to salvation. Baptism by the Holy Ghost, i.e. the regeneration that justifies, is a “necessity of means” to salvation.
DR
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
Ok. First, I thought you were referring to the first section, “On the Sacraments in General.” This is from the section “On Baptism.”
Yes, the section is talking about the sacrament. As it says, it is “not optional,” and explains that as “necessary to salvation.” All who know of the sacrament must receive it or make efforts to receive it (e.g., catechumens); it cannot be simply foregone as not necessary, as something “optional."
What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is “optional” or "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. We could look at the Latin (and should), but here's my sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death. Receiving baptism is not free or voluntary, and I don't know of a single Catholic who submits to the Church teaching on BOD who holds to the Church's teachings that says that. To recognize that BOD can justify or save without the sacrament in some circuмstances is not saying baptism is "free" or "not necessary for salvation." The only way you get your reading of this passage is if you take “optional” or "free" out, which is ridiculous, since the "not necessary for salvation" language is a gloss on that very word, “optional” or “free.”
However, you make Trent contradict itself. What is “necessary” as a “necessity of means” is the “grace of Baptism,” regeneration by the Holy Ghost. I posted a note on the “traditional Catholic belief” of the three baptisms which bring about regeneration.
Trent does not contradict itself, the and Catechism of Trent doesn’t contradict Trent:
Justification is:
a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Session 6, Ch. 4)
The Catechism of Trent says:
Necessity of Baptism ~ If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once ~ On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
As St. Thomas said regarding the “grace of baptism”:
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
No sacrament is necessary as a “necessity of means” to salvation. Baptism by the Holy Ghost, i.e. the regeneration that justifies, is a “necessity of means” to salvation.
DR
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.
Can anyone who does not believe in Baptism of Blood explain what a catechuman should do when presented with the choice of "death" or "deny Christ"?
-
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.
Can anyone who does not believe in Baptism of Blood explain what a catechuman should do when presented with the choice of "death" or "deny Christ"?
Good point.
-
It's interesting, when you look at the worst parts of Vat.II you find that BoD fits in very well -- into the worst parts of Vat.II. As Pope St. Pius X said about heresy in Modernism, BoD sits in Vatican II errors as in its own house.
Everyone has to admit that NO SINGLE CONCEPT has done more damage to the Faith than BoD. Whether you want to argue that it's been distorted or abused to this end, this fact is simply beyond dispute. It's the notion that one can "implicitly desire" one's way into the Church that has led to religious indifferentism, the idea that someone can be saved in any religion whatsoever (as condemned by several popes and yet taught even by the likes of an Archbishop Lefebvre), to the new Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology, to religious liberty, and to ecuмenism, all the chief errors of our day.
And the much-despised Father Feeney saw this at work in his day, in the years just prior to and leading inexorably to Vatican II.
Yet Traditional Catholics have been polluted by this same subjectivist thinking and consider Father Feeney a greater enemy than Cardinal ("No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense!") Cushing or even than John Paul II or Francis.
-
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
Uhm, remember that according to your reading of Trent, Baptism of Blood doesn't exist.
You can find more Church Fathers who reject BoD (5-6) than who accept BoD (1). Many of these same Fathers believed in BoB but then rejected BoD.
Yet EVERYONE seems to lump the two together.
-
But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.
YOU are the one who has been brainwashed by the enemies of the Catholic Church. Useful idiots is all that you are.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
...useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
-
Traditional Catholic BoDers are nothing but useful idiots in service to the enemies of the Church.
BoD serves no other purpose, especially in this day and age, than to undermine the Faith. If nothing else, you at least need to wake up and realize that it's absolutely "inopportune" for you to go around trumpeting the idea of BoD in this day and age. It serves NO GOOD PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. Instead you need to be EMPHASIZING ... EENS and the NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS and the need for CONVERSION. Instead you've made BoD your chief crusade, the very concept which has led directly to all the modern errors.
Useful idiots!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
That just means the dispositions are prerequisites for justification. And you miss the crucial part.
justification itself... through the voluntary reception of the grace
...
the instrumental cause [of this justification] is the sacrament of baptism
-
Vatican II ecclesiology does not really differ from that of the typical BOD adherent. It is the SAME heresy of undermining the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as ONLY means of salvation and denial of EENS, as written.
The Council of Trent clearly teaches that BOTH WATER and WILL are REQUIRED for justification. In the famous passage, when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR but actually emphasizing the necessity of both.
There is nobody about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure water baptism for. To say otherwise, it is to say that God commands impossibilities which is solemnly condemned.
Also, our worry and obsession about the hypothetical catechumen that dies in his way of receiving water baptism is odd, in view of the salvation problems staring at us in our neighbor next door. This is indeed another sad effect of the rampaged indifferentism of the day: For the modernist mind, there is not a real and absolute necessity and merit for being a Catholic because also a Muslim can be saved being "invincible ignorant".
-
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
Uhm, remember that according to your reading of Trent, Baptism of Blood doesn't exist.
You can find more Church Fathers who reject BoD (5-6) than who accept BoD (1). Many of these same Fathers believed in BoB but then rejected BoD.
Yet EVERYONE seems to lump the two together.
Sir. You are misguided. You also have shown to have a problem with numbers again. I say that with all due respect to a man I respect.
If you were a catechism and you had a choice between martyrdom or denying Christ which would you choose?
-
But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.
YOU are the one who has been brainwashed by the enemies of the Catholic Church. Useful idiots is all that you are.
I forgot to add that the Feeneyites when programmed for heresy also get programmed to lose any sense of charity. Please add that to the record.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
...useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term is rightly considered uncharitable.
-
Traditional Catholic BoDers are nothing but useful idiots in service to the enemies of the Church.
BoD serves no other purpose, especially in this day and age, than to undermine the Faith. If nothing else, you at least need to wake up and realize that it's absolutely "inopportune" for you to go around trumpeting the idea of BoD in this day and age. It serves NO GOOD PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. Instead you need to be EMPHASIZING ... EENS and the NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS and the need for CONVERSION. Instead you've made BoD your chief crusade, the very concept which has led directly to all the modern errors.
Useful idiots!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
You have a demonic hatred for Catholic Truth. The Truth is our purpose. We don't spin things one way or the other due to the times. The truth stands on it its own which is why otherwise intelligent people get so frustrating with not being able to respond to our objections. But I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong.
If you had a choice between death or deny Christ as a catechumen which would you choose. A Catholic does not have to give it a second thought.
-
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
Uhm, remember that according to your reading of Trent, Baptism of Blood doesn't exist.
You can find more Church Fathers who reject BoD (5-6) than who accept BoD (1). Many of these same Fathers believed in BoB but then rejected BoD.
Yet EVERYONE seems to lump the two together.
Sir. You are misguided. You also have shown to have a problem with numbers again. I say that with all due respect to a man I respect.
If you were a catechism and you had a choice between martyrdom or denying Christ which would you choose?
The term above should be "catechumen" rather than "catechism".
But even if you were a catechism with rational thought, what choice would you make, what do the catechisms themselves teach?
-
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.
Can anyone who does not believe in Baptism of Blood explain what a catechuman should do when presented with the choice of "death" or "deny Christ"?
Baptism of Blood (Florence, 14..):
“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church[/color][/b]”
Although there is no a direct condemnation of Baptism of Blood, we certainly find that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Catholic Church.
Now, give you two guesses why the discussion is not really about Baptism Of Blood for martyrs, but irremediably fall into BOD. It is because it is the theory of BOD (not BOB) that the modernist liberals have twisted in order to justify invincible ignorance and thus salvation for non-Catholics, making the membership in the Church "abstract" or "relative" to their convenience.
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
Yes yes LoT, we all know you believe saints are above infallible decrees - what else is new? You do not even know what infallibility is.
Also, why are you mentioning Pius XII when you believe papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
Will you ever start a thread and champion defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? No, because you who despise the necessity of the sacraments cannot defend that which you despise - any more than I could possibly defend salvation via NSAA.
That should be your clue that you are lost and to tell you the truth, I am amazed that after more than six months now, you still cannot admit that it is an impossibility for you to actually defend the necessity of the sacraments. It demonstrates how strong your dishonesty reigns within you.
Answer the following questions Stubborn, if you have any integrability:
1. I When did I say the saints are above infallible decress?
2. When did I say papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
3. When did I say I despise the sacraments?
4. Do you understand the quote from the Council of Trent better than Liguori or Pius XII did?
The above post shows that you are willing to make up things in order to validate your false beliefs. I'll recant if you can answer the above questions and show that I claim the saints [teachings] are above infallible decrees, that papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for me [of course Stubborn doesn't need anyone to interpret anything for him as he has a better understanding of theology than Aquinas, Bellarmine and Ligouri], show where I said that I "despise" the sacraments and either admit or deny that you [believe you] understand Trent better than Ligouri.
Carry on. :cheers:
That you will not understand clear teaching is obvious. That the saints answer to Trent and not the other way around is something you might understand if you understood what infallibility is.
As Trent's catechism teaches: "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it.."
You preach the sacraments are of no use, that the desire for them is all anyone (except you of course) needs. Therefore, per Trent, we must suppose you despise the sacraments. The danger lies in the fact that you and all other NSAAers refuse to openly admit it.
-
Heresies often occur in pairs, the Monophysites were so repulsed by the heretical Nestorian division of Christ into Two Persons that they refused to admit the true distinction of Natures in His Person, and became heretics themselves. There are several other examples, and Feeneyites and indifferentists like Nestorians and Monophysites are just two false extremes, the laxist and the rigorist, diverging to the right and the left from the narrow path of Catholic orthodoxy as taught by Saints, Doctors, theologians, the Church, Her Catechisms, Ordinary Magisterium, Ordinary and universal Magisterium and Extraordinary Magisterium itself.
The three dogmatic proofs from Trent cannot be overthrown, first, Trent always uses voto to refer to desire causing the sacramental effect (when, for example, it speaks of the reception of penance and the Eucharist in voto), and never to voto as a mere disposition, therefore, this proves that baptism also can be received in voto. Second, penance is said in Trent to be necessary for salvation in those who have fallen as baptism itself is necessary for those who have not been regenerated. But even most Feeneyites concede that penance is necessary in fact or in desire, and this is plainly taught in both the Council and Catechism of Trent anyway, which even Feeneyites cannot deny even if they wanted. But then it would follow that baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.
There is a third proof (for those like Stubborn who from Sola Denzinger to Sola Trent are so far gone as to insist on Sola Canons) from those very canons which nonetheless refutes the obstinate denial of Catholic doctrine Feeneyites routinely engage in, and it is that Trent clearly says, "Sacraments", in plural, and "desire for them" again in plural, (See Session VII, Canon 4, Denz 847) in its canons thereby emphasizing that desire can cause the sacramental effect of justification for both sacraments. Feeneyites admit this is true of penance, but cannot explain why this is used in the plural, and it cannot be explained, unless it were true for two sacraments, namely baptism and penance alike.
Authoritative Papal teaching after Trent is absolutely unanimous on what is the mind of the Church on this subject.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
If you won't hear it from one of the very greatest Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, a champion against modernism, then you probably won't hear it from any Pope ever. And please let's not hear the discredited claim that St. Pius X did not write this, which is often asserted but never proven, and has been disproven here before, with a scanned photocopy of the original text of this Catechism uploaded, and a link to the Vatican website where St. Pius X evidently confirms his authorship and approval. If Pope St. Pius X's teaching does not suffice, then nothing will.
-
Ok. First, I thought you were referring to the first section, “On the Sacraments in General.” This is from the section “On Baptism.”
Yes, the section is talking about the sacrament. As it says, it is “not optional,” and explains that as “necessary to salvation.” All who know of the sacrament must receive it or make efforts to receive it (e.g., catechumens); it cannot be simply foregone as not necessary, as something “optional."
No, it says the sacrament is not optional - where do you come up with "all who know of the sacrament...."? That's NO garbage teaching.
You just quoted Trent below: "it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all,
Are they or are they not expected to learn of it and does the law of baptism extend to all or only to those who know about it?
What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is “optional” or "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. We could look at the Latin (and should), but here's my sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death.
Preserve in what justification before the sacrament?
You just quoted Trent below: "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.
So where is this middle state of justification? Trent goes right from a child of Adam to the state of grace.
Trent then goes on to telling you the only way this translation to grace can happen - - only through the sacrament.............."And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof (http://www.traditio.com/office/baptpar.htm)[/b] , as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now when you read it to agree with Canon V, there is no contradiction because 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.
"As it is written" means what it says - but NSAAers twist it into meaning: "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, or the desire thereof, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
"As it is written" and Canon V agree completely.
Per Trent's catechism, "Or the desire thereof" means: "The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."
Note what I put in red.......
The tradition of the Church dictates to not even administer the sacrament without first asking if they are willing to be baptized - then the recipient must answer a clear "yes". How about that?
NSAAers, against Trent's teaching above, reject all that ceremony and drama and try to get people to believe that the Church teaches that people are presumed in their last nano second to automatically have some implicit desire to be baptized even if they never heard of the sacrament, and that his implicit desire to be baptized actually somehow baptizes them - and this implicit desire rewards them salvation - all without any sacrament at all ---- and this, they say, is what the Church teaches.
-
Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood. This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.
But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.
Can anyone who does not believe in Baptism of Blood explain what a catechuman should do when presented with the choice of "death" or "deny Christ"?
Baptism of Blood (Florence, 14..):
“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church
[/i][/color][/b]”
Although there is no a direct condemnation of Baptism of Blood, we certainly find that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Catholic Church.
Now, give you two guesses why the discussion is not really about Baptism Of Blood for martyrs, but irremediably fall into BOD. It is because it is the theory of BOD (not BOB) that the modernist liberals have twisted in order to justify invincible ignorance and thus salvation for non-Catholics, making the membership in the Church "abstract" or "relative" to their convenience.
_______________________________________________________
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined [aggregati] to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra
_________________________________________________________
Abide - To remain; continue; stay.
Aggregati - collect, include, group, implicate; (cause to) flock/join together, attach.
Persevered - Persisted in; remained constant.
Look closely at this paragraph immediately above and one sees two basic parts, the first that teaches that "all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives" (in other words, dealing with those who are outside the Church, and the second, "that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," which deals with those who are [already] inside the Church. Notice that it is clearly referring to the second part (those inside the Church) when it uses the word "persevered" to specify what they must do. To sacrifice all and give any manner of alms etc. but then fail to persevere within the Church is to be in that category in which "nobody can be saved." Only the first part of this paragraph pertains to those who are outside the Church (and hence required to seek baptism), and the only condition it places upon them is to be "joined to the Church before the end of their lives." Since this does not in any manner address what it takes to be "joined to the Church" it in no way excludes whatever means God may elect to use in some specific case where water baptism was not obtainable but nevertheless sought.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jun/jun3ftt.htm
I have responded as clearly as possible to your good objection. If you can't see the distinction being made here then. Well, hopefully you can see the distinction made even if you do not admit to it. Legitimate theologians easily make the distinction. Others don't. Left to your own wiles, well take a look around.
No one can come out and say if I was a catecuмen I would deny Christ rather than die before being baptized? Good. One who does so makes water more important than Christ.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
...useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term is rightly considered uncharitable.
I'm just speaking the truth, and the term useful idiot has become a very technical term to describe someone who think's he's fighting an enemy but is really enlisted in the enemy's cause and is being used by the enemy for their own ends.
Your dozens of articles promoting BoD, which is THE weapon the enemy has used to undermine the Faith, is only serving their purposes.
Where are your articles defending EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation?
I stand by the charge. Whether you consider it "charitable" or not, it's the truth, and sometimes truth is charity. Sometimes strong language is required to snap someone out of the intellectual stupor they've fallen into.
Have you admonished SJB (my fellow "Feeneyite") about his repeated (as in dozens of times) use of the term idiot against people? Didn't think so. It's much more harsh than the term "useful" idiot, which is a technical term.
-
To make it even more clear the Bull teaches that a Catholic who does not persevere in the Catholic Church cannot be saved even if he shed his blood for Christ. It does not deny BOB in regards to those "joined" to the Church either by desire or as members. A member has no need of BOB to be saved, though one "joined" to her through desire would benefit greatly from BOB. This is clear to the objective observer. In fact the Church teaches that BOB is a more perfect form of the one baptism than sacramental baptism as it most perfectly imitates Christ.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
...useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term is rightly considered uncharitable.
I'm just speaking the truth, and the term useful idiot has become a very technical term to describe someone who think's he's fighting an enemy but is really enlisted in the enemy's cause and is being used by the enemy for their own ends.
Your dozens of articles promoting BoD, which is THE weapon the enemy has used to undermine the Faith, is only serving their purposes.
Where are your articles defending EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation?
I stand by the charge. Whether you consider it "charitable" or not, it's the truth, and sometimes truth is charity. Sometimes strong language is required to snap someone out of the intellectual stupor they've fallen into.
Have you admonished SJB (my fellow "Feeneyite") about his repeated (as in dozens of times) use of the term idiot against people? Didn't think so. It's much more harsh than the term "useful" idiot, which is a technical term.
Articles promoting BOB/D correctly defends EENS. You have been blinded to the truth. You are guilty of the term you apply. I have no doubt that you do not realize your error or the seriousness of it.
-
STUBBORN:
Council of Trent said:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.
LOVER OF TRUTH:
Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.
Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?
Yes yes LoT, we all know you believe saints are above infallible decrees - what else is new? You do not even know what infallibility is.
Also, why are you mentioning Pius XII when you believe papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
Will you ever start a thread and champion defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments unto salvation? No, because you who despise the necessity of the sacraments cannot defend that which you despise - any more than I could possibly defend salvation via NSAA.
That should be your clue that you are lost and to tell you the truth, I am amazed that after more than six months now, you still cannot admit that it is an impossibility for you to actually defend the necessity of the sacraments. It demonstrates how strong your dishonesty reigns within you.
Answer the following questions Stubborn, if you have any integrability:
1. I When did I say the saints are above infallible decrees?
2. When did I say papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
3. When did I say I despise the sacraments?
4. Do you understand the quote from the Council of Trent better than Liguori or Pius XII did?
The above post shows that you are willing to make up things in order to validate your false beliefs. I'll recant if you can answer the above questions and show that I claim the saints [teachings] are above infallible decrees, that papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for me [of course Stubborn doesn't need anyone to interpret anything for him as he has a better understanding of theology than Aquinas, Bellarmine and Ligouri], show where I said that I "despise" the sacraments and either admit or deny that you [believe you] understand Trent better than Ligouri.
Carry on. :cheers:
That you will not understand clear teaching is obvious. That the saints answer to Trent and not the other way around is something you might understand if you understood what infallibility is.
As Trent's catechism teaches: "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it.."
You preach the sacraments are of no use, that the desire for them is all anyone (except you of course) needs. Therefore, per Trent, we must suppose you despise the sacraments. The danger lies in the fact that you and all other NSAAers refuse to openly admit it.
Here is another chance to prove you intellectual honesty Stubborn:
1. I When did I say the saints are above infallible decrees?
2. When did I say papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?
3. When did I say I despise the sacraments?
4. Do you understand the quote from the Council of Trent better than Liguori or Pius XII did?
Cat got your tongue?
-
We've addressed your absurd "persevere" argument on a number of occasions already.
That simply means that what counts is your final state at death when it comes to your salvation, i.e. it just means that they must die in that state.
Cf. Cantate Domino
unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock
As I said, every time you people post it just makes me more certain that BoD is nothing but nonsense. You don't serve your cause very well.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
...useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term is rightly considered uncharitable.
I'm just speaking the truth, and the term useful idiot has become a very technical term to describe someone who think's he's fighting an enemy but is really enlisted in the enemy's cause and is being used by the enemy for their own ends.
Your dozens of articles promoting BoD, which is THE weapon the enemy has used to undermine the Faith, is only serving their purposes.
Where are your articles defending EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation?
I stand by the charge. Whether you consider it "charitable" or not, it's the truth, and sometimes truth is charity. Sometimes strong language is required to snap someone out of the intellectual stupor they've fallen into.
Have you admonished SJB (my fellow "Feeneyite") about his repeated (as in dozens of times) use of the term idiot against people? Didn't think so. It's much more harsh than the term "useful" idiot, which is a technical term.
SJB is not a Feeneyite and would be more likely to properly and accurately apply the term. I have no doubt that useful idiots exist.
-
Articles promoting BOB/D correctly defends EENS.
You are absolutely diabolically blinded about this subject.
-
SJB is not a Feeneyite and would be more likely to properly and accurately apply the term.
You obviously missed the point of the sarcasm. If it's Feeneyism that makes people uncharitable, then what's SJB's excuse?
-
We've addressed your absurd "persevere" argument on a number of occasions already.
That simply means that what counts is your final state at death when it comes to your salvation, i.e. it just means that they must die in that state.
Cf. Cantate Domino
unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock
As I said, every time you people post it just makes me more certain that BoD is nothing but nonsense. You don't serve your cause very well.
Answer the question. If you were a catechuman would you chose to deny Christ rather than die before being baptized?
You seem rather ready to respond to other issues, why not answer the question with a "yes" or "no"? Isn't that how Catholics are to respond to questions?
Additionally it is rather Protestant to take a partial sentence out of an entire docuмent and use it for your novel interpretation of Catholic teaching. Context anyone?
-
If you were a catechuman would you chose to deny Christ rather than die before being baptized?
Absolutely not (in principle -- obviously I don't know whether I'd chicken out under the circuмstances, except that I be aided by the grace of God). How is that even a question? There's never any reason to deny Christ. Ends can never justify the means. That's basic Catholic Moral Theology 101.
-
Now that I've answered your question, please answer my questions. Yes or no answers only.
Question #1:
Is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for salvation?
Question #2:
Can non-Catholics be saved?
-
If you were a catechuman would you chose to deny Christ rather than die before being baptized?
Absolutely not (in principle -- obviously I don't know whether I'd chicken out under the circuмstances, except that I be aided by the grace of God). How is that even a question? There's never any reason to deny Christ. Ends can never justify the means. That's basic Catholic Moral Theology 101.
Then you do not deny BOB unless. Before I answer your questions will you affirm or deny that you accept BOB?
-
SJB is not a Feeneyite and would be more likely to properly and accurately apply the term.
You obviously missed the point of the sarcasm. If it's Feeneyism that makes people uncharitable, then what's SJB's excuse?
You may or may not have a slight point. But then you are uncharitable. If you accurately use the term how uncharitable are you. Is his motive to wake some one up. Is it to slap him down merely to slap him down. Is it to protect others from accepting his errors. I think his motives are good. I don't doubt your motives are good either. In fact I am pretty sure that your motives are good.
-
Articles promoting BOB/D correctly defends EENS.
You are absolutely diabolically blinded about this subject.
That fully describes you. I hope you see the light before you meet the Maker. I know you are capable.
-
Then you do not deny BOB unless. Before I answer your questions will you affirm or deny that you accept BOB?
I do not currently believe in BoB. I admit that there's more Patristic evidence for it than for BoD, but I do not think it conclusive, i.e. I don't think there's enough of it to prove a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers. If you trace it, it appears to have its origins in the teaching of St. Cyprian and the others picked it up from him (rather than it being of Apostolic origin due to Fathers independently teaching the same thing). And, furthermore, if you read Trent the way you do, then Trent rules out the existence of BoB.
-
Then you do not deny BOB unless. Before I answer your questions will you affirm or deny that you accept BOB?
I do not currently believe in BoB. I admit that there's more Patristic evidence for it than for BoD, but I do not think it conclusive, i.e. I don't think there's enough of it to prove a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers. If you trace it, it appears to have its origins in the teaching of St. Cyprian and the others picked it up from him (rather than it being of Apostolic origin due to Fathers independently teaching the same thing). And, furthermore, if you read Trent the way you do, then Trent rules out the existence of BoB.
Then in effect you would go to Hell for Christ?
-
What is you definition of "unanimous" in regards to how you use it in your previous post?
-
What is you definition of "unanimous" in regards to how you use it in your previous post?
In that context, unanimous doesn't mean unopposed. If one Father held an opinion and no one else held the contrary, that wouldn't make it a "unanimous consensus of the Fathers". Of the hundreds and hundreds of Church Fathers, you would expect more than just about 7-8 (all of whom have direct ties to St. Cyprian) to hold it if in fact it was revealed truth. Conversely, even IF there are one or two who hold opposing opinions, that doesn't by itself make exclude a teaching from being "unanimous".
-
Now that I've answered your question, please answer my questions. Yes or no answers only.
Question #1:
Is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for salvation?
Question #2:
Can non-Catholics be saved?
Question #1
The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation by Divine precept and by a necessity of means but not by intrinsic necessity. One must be baptized or at least have the desire for it, even if the desire is only implicit, in order to be in a position in which he can be saved.
Question #2
No one outside the Church can be saved. Only those within the Church, at least by desire, are in a position to where they can be saved. The Church we speak of is the Catholic Church, there is no other Church in which one can be saved. Is one within the Church by desire a Catholic? He is a Catholic by desire. It has to be an effective desire rather than a mere wish. Such a desire includes a supernatural faith and perfect charity and perfect charity is only obtained by one in a state of supernatural grace and supernatural grace can only be obtained within the Church.
I hope that helps.
These are the distinctions that Catholic theologians make without even having to think about it. They are the distinctions that Popes infallibly teach.
This is much different than how a Protestant would interpret the Bible. They do not make distinctions but make it fit what they already believe. This is very clear. We see the same thing with Catholics, who are already convinced of one thing and spin whatever is presented to them in a way that confirms to their preconceived ideas.
This can be avoided by trusting the Church's theologians more than yourself.
-
What is you definition of "unanimous" in regards to how you use it in your previous post?
In that context, unanimous doesn't mean unopposed. If one Father held an opinion and no one else held the contrary, that wouldn't make it a "unanimous consensus of the Fathers". Of the hundreds and hundreds of Church Fathers, you would expect more than just about 7-8 (all of whom have direct ties to St. Cyprian) to hold it if in fact it was revealed truth. Conversely, even IF there are one or two who hold opposing opinions, that doesn't by itself make exclude a teaching from being "unanimous".
So you are not 100% sure that water is absolutely necessary in all instances. You are open to the contrary being true based upon your interpretation of what some Fathers taught?
You also would go to Hell rather than deny Christ?
-
Then in effect you would go to Hell for Christ?
It is not for me to decide whom God should save and whom He should not. Whether He saves or whether He does not save, glory to God, for whatever He does is good and just and merciful. That His Will be done, and not ours, is our only prayer. I would only ask for the gift of being able to love Him (and not hate Him) in hell. Hell is all that I deserve, and I have no right to expect or demand anything else from God ... but only beg for Him to grant me salvation in His Mercy.
-
Then in effect you would go to Hell for Christ?
It is not for me to decide whom God should save and whom He should not. Whether He saves or whether He does not save, glory to God, for whatever He does is good and just and merciful. That His Will be done, and not ours, is our only prayer. I would only ask for the gift of being able to love Him (and not hate Him) in hell. Hell is all that I deserve, and I have no right to expect or demand anything else from God ... but only beg for Him to grant me salvation in His Mercy.
There is hope for you my friend. Pray for me and be assured of my prayers.
-
So you are not 100% sure that water is absolutely necessary in all instances
Yes, I'm 100% sure that water is absolutely necessary in all instances. Trent teaches that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation. That is defined dogma. What remains at issue is whether that Sacrament of Baptism can act as the instrumental cause of salvation in some other way. I say no, but obviously since the Church has not directly taught that there is no such thing as BoB, then it's based on my private judgment and I cannot have 100% certainty when it comes to my private judgment.
If there were such a thing as BoB ... which I dispute and do not concede ... then it would have to impart the Christian character and also would make those baptized in this manner actual members of the Church. I dispute this bogus idea that non-members of the Church can be members by desire. It's just plain stupid. Either you're a member or you're not.
-
To make it even more clear the Bull teaches that a Catholic who does not persevere in the Catholic Church cannot be saved even if he shed his blood for Christ. It does not deny BOB in regards to those "joined" to the Church either by desire or as members. A member has no need of BOB to be saved, though one "joined" to her through desire would benefit greatly from BOB. This is clear to the objective observer. In fact the Church teaches that BOB is a more perfect form of the one baptism than sacramental baptism as it most perfectly imitates Christ.
If we were keeping count, this would be somewhere around the 42995th time you've had to twist the meaning of an infallible teaching in order for you to make it say something that it not only clearly does not say, but is also explicitly contradictory to what is infallibly taught.
Why don't you occupy your time and try with all your might to actually do the strictly Catholic thing for a change - defend the absolute necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - or do you actually think your championing salvation via No Sacrament At All is the Catholic thing to keep doing?
-
Are you asserting the only way an adult can be justified is by the sacrament (water and words)?
I am not asserting anything. Trent taught that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and the Sacrament involves the water and the words.
-
I hope that helps.
Unfortunately, it's exactly what I expected and it's very telling.
You cannot simply affirm the dogmas of the Church word for word with a simple "Yes" or "No" and without immediately launching into a three-paragraph dissertation on the "true meaning of each one". Are you ashamed of the Church's dogmas?
If I ask you, as a Catholic, "Is there salvation outside the Church?" YOUR ANSWER MUST BE NO.
If I ask you, as a Catholic, "Are the Sacraments necessary for salvation?" YOUR ANSWER MUST BE YES.
Anything else is of the devil, as Our Lord said.
-
At the end of the day, though, the discussion about BoD is a red herring.
It's an absolutely moot point when it comes to most Protestants and schismatics like the Orthodox ... since most of them are Baptized.
What's really the underlying issue is your refusal to accept the dogma EENS.
That's WHY you cling with white knuckles to BoD, not because you want to apply it to a catechumen who has embraced the Catholic faith and has all the necessary prerequisites for Baptism and is lacking nothing but the Sacrament itself. What, have there been about two or three cases of such a scenario in the past few hundred years?
No, your true agenda is the undermining of EENS. At the end of the day, you don't believe in it, and you don't believe in Traditional ecclesiology. You do not believe in "one Church of the faithful" but rather in a gnostic invisible Pelagian Church of nice people everywhere. You are Traditional Catholics in name only and Catholics in name only. Your sensus fidei regarding Traditional Catholicism consists of the smells and the bells and a repugnance for the personality of Jorge Bergoglio. At the end of the day, however, you are Vatican II Catholics in terms of belief and theology.
-
At the end of the day, though, the discussion about BoD is a red herring.
It's an absolutely moot point when it comes to most Protestants and schismatics like the Orthodox ... since most of them are Baptized.
What's really the underlying issue is your refusal to accept the dogma EENS.
That's WHY you cling with white knuckles to BoD, not because you want to apply it to a catechumen who has embraced the Catholic faith and has all the necessary prerequisites for Baptism and is lacking nothing but the Sacrament itself. What, have there been about two or three cases of such a scenario in the past few hundred years?
No, your true agenda is the undermining of EENS. At the end of the day, you don't believe in it, and you don't believe in Traditional ecclesiology. You do not believe in "one Church of the faithful" but rather in a gnostic invisible Pelagian Church of nice people everywhere. You are Traditional Catholics in name only and Catholics in name only. Your sensus fidei regarding Traditional Catholicism consists of the smells and the bells and a repugnance for the personality of Jorge Bergoglio. At the end of the day, however, you are Vatican II Catholics in terms of belief and theology.
Well said, Ladislaus.
Almost without a fail, BOD (invincible ignorance) adherents believe that Sacraments are optional. In doing this, they gravely sin against the Holy Ghost to despise the royal means of salvation offered to us by Christ Lord though the ONLY Church.
These deniers of EENS believe one can be interiorly united to the Church and all sacraments can be taken invisibly with an inward disposition. Better to a visible member of the church, but one can also be an invisible member and so be saved, they say. That is to say that Baptism is optional which is infallibly condemned.
Loyal Catholics must defend the pristine purity of the Faith without the output of these modernists in disguise.
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the entire cycle of Catholic doctrine and yet by a single word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple Faith. He who dissents in a single point from divinely -revealed truth absolutely rejects all Faith" Pope Leo XIII
-
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the entire cycle of Catholic doctrine and yet by a single word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple Faith. He who dissents in a single point from divinely -revealed truth absolutely rejects all Faith" Pope Leo XIII
I've always loved this quote and man oh man does it ever apply to NSAAers in general.
-
Some prefer matchbox theology and their own intellects to the reliable theological giants and infallible teaching's of the Popes. That is their problem, not mine.
-
So you are not 100% sure that water is absolutely necessary in all instances
Yes, I'm 100% sure that water is absolutely necessary in all instances. Trent teaches that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation. That is defined dogma. What remains at issue is whether that Sacrament of Baptism can act as the instrumental cause of salvation in some other way. I say no, but obviously since the Church has not directly taught that there is no such thing as BoB, then it's based on my private judgment and I cannot have 100% certainty when it comes to my private judgment.
If there were such a thing as BoB ... which I dispute and do not concede ... then it would have to impart the Christian character and also would make those baptized in this manner actual members of the Church. I dispute this bogus idea that non-members of the Church can be members by desire. It's just plain stupid. Either you're a member or you're not.
Then why do you stammer around the BOB issue? Why do you force some to be in a position to where they have to either deny Christ in order to get baptized with the "No Salvation Outside of Water" "dogma" Feeney invented or be certainly damned for defending Christ but not getting baptized by the "No Salvation Outside of Water".
-
That just means the dispositions are prerequisites for justification. And you miss the crucial part.
justification itself... through the voluntary reception of the grace
...
the instrumental cause [of this justification] is the sacrament of baptism
Yes, I have read that so maybe it is the understanding of the instrumental cause.
Are you asserting the only way an adult can be justified is by the sacrament (water and words)?
How do you understand instrumental cause?
Yes, "The No Salvation Outside of Water and Words" "dogma" that describes the Feeneyites perfectly.
-
Some prefer matchbox theology and their own intellects to the reliable theological giants and infallible teaching's of the Popes. That is their problem, not mine.
That sums it up. :applause:
-
Then why do you stammer around the BOB issue?
Stammer? I'm not the one who posts 5-page articles in an attempt to explain (or, rather, explain away) EENS.
Why do you force some to be in a position to where they have to either deny Christ in order to get baptized with the "No Salvation Outside of Water" "dogma" Feeney invented or be certainly damned for defending Christ but not getting baptized by the "No Salvation Outside of Water".
Again with the stupid false dilemma that you believe yourself so clever for inventing. God cannot be prevented by the "impossible" from granting salvation to His elect. If He wills for someone to be baptized with water, then that person will be baptized with water.
You've never addressed this issue, but as with all things that are inconvenient to your position you simply ignore it.
Do you deny that God can bring water Baptism to anyone whom He wills to receive it?
-
Yes, "The No Salvation Outside of Water and Words" "dogma" that describes the Feeneyites perfectly.
So you deride the Council of Trent's teaching that the SACRAMENTS are necessary for salvation? You speak with UTTER CONTEMPT for the Holy Sacrament of Baptism instituted solemnly by Our Lord Jesus Christ as "water and words", along the lines of "smells and bells". Ah, yes, the poor fools who believe superstitiously that "water and words" are necessary for salvation.
This just confirms my assertion that you are nothing but thinly-disguised Protestants with your invisible Church and Sacrament-less ecclesiology, the very notions that Trent set out to anathematize. Objectively speaking, you fall under Trent's anathemas.
-
To Father Kramer,
Do you believe that the novus ordo mass is just another form of the mass, or a counterfeit? Satan uses counterfeits to subtly pass for the original. Often, we know because Church teaching is obviously opposed to a counterfeit, like Protestant churches or pastors. (Note that or is inclusive here) Sometimes, we know simply because of the fruits of the counterfeit. Let's consider some of the fruits of baptism of desire.
The one good "fruit" of baptism of desire (BOD) they say, is salvation. But can it deliver the salvation promised? BOD is not a formal teaching of the church and not a doctrine. Consider some of the other fruits of BOD, all of which are destructive to the faith. Below is a partial list of the fruits of BOD.
By their fruits you will know them.... Mathew 7:16
THE FRUITS OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE
Baptism of desire (BOD) automatically denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.
BOD mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not remit sin, does not impart the baptismal character, all things the church teaches are part of justification and necessary for salvation, and which are the very characteristics of true baptism.
BOD promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone saves.
BOD leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants since infants are not guilty of actual sin.
BOD contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, BOD, by definition, is not the same as baptism, but another baptism entirely.
Advocates admit BOD does not make one a member of the Church. The church teaches infallibly that there is no salvation outside the Church, so BOD cannot save.
BOD promotes laxity and indifferentism because many Catholics often rest in another's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get the person baptized.
BOD is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured.
BOD is nothing like baptism because the water and words are unnecessary.
BOD attempts to reward perseverance in sin.
BOD is not a sacrament, nor has it been defined, yet BOD is said to replace baptism, the one sacrament that is necessary for salvation.
BOD suggests the God is impotent, because due to circuмstance, the Almighty might not be able to provide the water.
BOD implies God is not author of life and death because people meet their death in an untimely manner, before they can receive true baptism.
BOD makes liars of popes and saints who teach no one who dies outside the Catholic Church is saved.
BOD is said to save some outside the Church, making the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside the Church" a false teaching.
BOD mocks the Holy Spirit Who tells us in scripture to be washed for the remission of sins when baptism of desire neither remits sin, nor employs water.
BOD makes Jesus a liar, Who says: "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".
BOD mocks scripture 1 Peter 3:21 a verse that says "baptism now saves you" by pretending that an unprovided death can do the same.
BOD undermines the Council of Trent which took great care to define the form and matter of baptism in very specific detail.
BOD denies the teaching that a person must be baptized by another.
BOD denies this canon in Trent: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema' by removing the need for water.
BOD is a fine example of how one twists into a metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema."
BOD voids another infallible canon in Trent that states: "If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
BOD by its very definition undermines Christ's missionary mandate.
BOD suggests God is unmerciful unless He contradicts His Word and Church teaching and provide salvation without baptism.
BOD is a nothing more than Satan's counterfeit for a necessary sacrament.
Note: I have a revised version of this on youtube called Fruits of Baptism of Desire.
--Elena
-
Posted on Facebook, April 27, 2014
Father Kramer wrote:
TO ALL FEENEYITES:
Your disagreement with the infallibly defined doctrine of Baptism of Desire is as irrational as it is heretical. You have no excuse: Justification takes place by the laver of regeneration or the desire of it ("aut ejus voto"). The doctrine is interpreted in that sense officially in the Roman Catechism. The doctrine of baptism by "votum" is explained in the Roman Catechism by authotity of the pope who presided over the latter sessions of the Council of Trent and formulated by the most eminent Council Fathers of Trent, namely, St. Charles Borromeo. Do you disagree with their undertanding of the expression "aut ejus voto" -- of them who formulated and ratified the Decree on Justification? Do you disagree with all the popes and doctors who understood the Decree as clearly teaching Baptism of Desire? Are you aware that Vatican I defined under penalty of «anathema» that you must understand the dogmas as the Church has understood and understands them? The Church has always understood and understands the dogma in question to mean "without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it" The Church has always understood and transmitted the clearly expressed doctrine of the Decree on Justification that those who die justified and sanctified by baptism "or the desire of it" inherit eternal life -- yet you disagree with the constant teaching of the Church on this point of dogma. Are you aware that just because the word «aut» can sometimes mean "and" as well as "or" is absolutely of no consequence here? The term "votum" is always employed in reference to the fulfillment of some future deed or duty, and therefore cannot be correctly translated in this context as "the laver of regeneration and the desire of it"; as if one being baptized at present could absurdly have the simultaneous desire to receive it at some time in the future. Your disagrerment is a direct denial of an infallibly defined teaching of the Council of Trent, and of the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. By your obstinate denial of the defined dogma, you place yourself under the «anathema» (Canon 33 Decree on Justification) and outside the Church.
Hi Father Kramer,
Firstly, I want you to know that I follow your videos and cd's with great anticipation and admiration because they are filled with truth. You have helped me with details and observations to no end. I thank you for all! We do differ on one thing. Let me explain.
It is not so much the word "or" that is at issue on baptism of desire (in Trent). It is the word "without". "Without" applies to both "laver of regeneration" and "the desire for it". The sentence (in both English and Latin) says you cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. And it says, you cannot have justification without the desire for it. The word "without" applies to every subject that follows in the sentence. You need both. The sentence does not say one instead of the other, as if to say, only laver of regeneration exclusive of desire is necessary for justification, or only the desire for it exclusive of laver of regeneration. The sentence says you cannot have justification without either: cannot without laver of regeneration, cannot without the desire for it. As anyone knows, no one can be baptized against his will. One must have the desire for it. And one must have the laver of regeneration. Both/and. Since this supports no salvation outside the church and every other de fide statement on the subject, it is the only way to view the sentence correctly. But also because the word without applies to both subjects. Without question. To make a doctrine that undermines all church teaching out of this statement in Trent is absurd. I know its popular. It's practically set in stone with some people. No foundation for baptism of desire can be found prior to the 1200's, it practically is non-existant. St. Augustine abandoned the idea at the end of his life. It is a new doctrine, a satanic counterfeit, a heresy of grand subtlety, and it undermines baptism by its very nature. It does not support or benefit Catholics in any capacity whatsoever, but actually harms the missionary zeal of Catholics to get baptism for all. See my "fruits of baptism of desire" here on this forum, and a revised edition on Youtube, called Fruits of Baptism of Desire. No, I am not a theologian. I'm nobody. But sometimes, the truth comes from out of nowhere. Hopefully, you will reflect on this even further. --Elena
-
Please don't cry Feeneyites. Just keep thumbing me down. It's therapeutic.
The theological giants err. The theological giants err. The theological giants err. :alcohol: :tinfoil: :jester: :cussing: :rahrah:
-
Please don't cry Feeneyites. Just keep thumbing me down. It's therapeutic.
The theological giants err. The theological giants err. The theological giants err. :alcohol: :tinfoil: :jester: :cussing: :rahrah:
You're cracking up, LoT. Most heretics eventually go crazy (cf. Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc.)
-
Please don't cry Feeneyites. Just keep thumbing me down. It's therapeutic.
The theological giants err. The theological giants err. The theological giants err. :alcohol: :tinfoil: :jester: :cussing: :rahrah:
You're cracking up, LoT. Most heretics eventually go crazy (cf. Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc.)
Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Ladislaus. And the winner is Ladislaus! :rahrah: And I'm the one that is crazy.
-
Please don't cry Feeneyites. Just keep thumbing me down. It's therapeutic.
The theological giants err. The theological giants err. The theological giants err. :alcohol: :tinfoil: :jester: :cussing: :rahrah:
You're cracking up, LoT. Most heretics eventually go crazy (cf. Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc.)
Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Ladislaus. And the winner is Ladislaus! :rahrah: And I'm the one that is crazy.
I'm not calling you a heretic for accepting BoD. I am calling you a heretic for your rejection of the Church dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, which none of these did. You can cling to BoD without having to reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation and without expressing outright contempt for the Sacrament, as you have done. But you in your heretical pride refuse to do so. All you have to say is that the Sacrament of Baptism acts as the instrumental cause of justification even in those who are justified by BoD or BoB. Well?
-
You can cling to BoD without having to reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation ...
How?
-
Please don't cry Feeneyites. Just keep thumbing me down. It's therapeutic.
The theological giants err. The theological giants err. The theological giants err. :alcohol: :tinfoil: :jester: :cussing: :rahrah:
You're cracking up, LoT. Most heretics eventually go crazy (cf. Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc.)
Aquinas, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Ladislaus. And the winner is Ladislaus! :rahrah: And I'm the one that is crazy.
I'm not calling you a heretic for accepting BoD. I am calling you a heretic for your rejection of the Church dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, which none of these did. You can cling to BoD without having to reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation and without expressing outright contempt for the Sacrament, as you have done. But you in your heretical pride refuse to do so. All you have to say is that the Sacrament of Baptism acts as the instrumental cause of justification even in those who are justified by BoD or BoB. Well?
Hey Ladislaus,
Sorry about the stuff I said to you today. I've been uncharitable. I take it back if I can. If you are really interested in my response. I believe as they do. Do you?
May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John