CathInfo.com

You cite St. Thomas and Pope Ven. Pius XII. St. Thomas, everyone knows, taught BOD. Pope Pius XII also taught that Trent taught BOD, himself taught it in an Encyclical Letter, and approved the Holy Office Letter giving the Church's understanding of EENS dogma.

"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807) ...These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire ... 

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243)."

From: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

St. Robert Bellarmine explains that Catechumens, who as yet lack supernatural charity, do not belong to the Church, neither externally nor internally. If they have supernatural charity or contrition, they belong to the Church inwardly, but not externally.

"·     St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16^th century): De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”

The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."

From: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

Regarding St. Gregory nαzιanzen, see this CE Article: "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)]baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is [/color]true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The topic of this thread was not about any of this anyway, but only about that one question on Cornelius which I asked Last Trad.

Here is my question to you, Trad123: "the position of the Dimonds which I'm arguing against in this thread. Do you believe BOD at least justifies? or do you deny BOD?" The claim of the Dimonds is incompatible with Scripture and the Catholic commentaries on it.

Pope Pius XII also taught that Trent taught BOD, himself taught it in an Encyclical Letter, and approved the Holy Office Letter giving the Church's understanding of EENS dogma.


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076


Letter to the Archbishop of Boston


"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807) ...These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire ...

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243)."

Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation: A Critique of His Critics

by Br. Robert Mary, MICM Tertiary


https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/27991101/Father-Feeney-and-the-Truth-About-Salvation-A-Critique-of-His-Critics-by-Brother-Robert-Mary-MICM



Chapter 9, Contiuned

C. The Requirements for Salvation

(. . .)

But Father Laisney is committed to judging Father Feeney and his disciples for"pertinacity in an error against a dogma of the Faith." He claims that "baptism of desire" is a dogma because it has been taught constantly by the Fathers, so he admonishes us that we must "hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers." We simply disagree with his claim. And, if it is not, in fact, a constant teaching of the Fathers,he has misled many Catholics and has rashly misjudged Father Feeney and his disciples.


Page 4: Salvation cannot be attained by one with the use of his reason, without God
revealing and man believing this Truth by a supernatural virtue and an act of Faith. He
does not have to know everything explicitly, but he has to believe explicitly all that he
knows of the Revelation.

Page 15: . . .it is necessary to know explicitly the essential articles of Faith, the Trinity,
the Incarnation and the Redemption, in as much as they have been revealed to the
person.


We agree! This is definitely the traditional teaching of the Church. It could not be stated more clearly. But we ask: Would it not require very flexible, twisted reasoning to claim that this teaching is reflected in the scandalous Marchetti-Selvaggiani Letter of August 8, 1949, wherein it states (in the two paragraphs most quoted by modernists and their allies) that men need to be "united" to the Church only by"desire and longing," and that "this desire need not always be explicit" because God also accepts an "implicit desire?"

How can we possibly reconcile this concept of votum implicitum with what Saint Thomas teaches us about the necessity of explicit Faith? We cannot, because the idea of "implicit desire" being sufficient for salvation is a novelty. This so-called Protocol Letter 122/49 was understood by the whole world to be a refutation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The world-at-large was led to believe that Rome had spoken definitively and that Father Feeney and Saint Benedict Center were totally wrong.

This Protocol Letter set a precedent for the policy of double talk, concealment,ambiguity and subtle contradiction employed so continuously since Vatican II by thehierarchy of the Church, up to and including the Pope.

Let us repeat, for emphasis, what we have said before. The fact that the Protocol never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis shows conclusively that it is hardly an official Church teaching. Those who believe it should be official Church teaching have a definite kinship with the arch-modernist apostle of "universal salvation," Karl Rahner, S.J. It was Rahner who placed the scandalous docuмent in the prestigious and influential Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger) while serving as its editor. This fact alone should be a warning to every traditional Catholic.

Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation: A Critique of His Critics

by Br. Robert Mary, MICM Tertiary


https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/27991101/Father-Feeney-and-the-Truth-About-Salvation-A-Critique-of-His-Critics-by-Brother-Robert-Mary-MICM


Chapter 9, Continued

The Escalation of Deception: From Mystici Corporis — to the Protocol — to Vatican II

First, let us look at Mystici Corporis to see if the Protocol Letter presents accurately what the Pope said. Near the end of this encyclical, the Holy Father requests the prayers of the whole Church for the return to the Mystical Body of Christ of non-Catholics, "both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from us. . . " Here is the usual, but faulty,translation of the key sentences:


We ask each and every one of them to be quick and ready to follow the interior
movements of grace, and to look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be
sure of their salvation. For even though unsuspectingly they are related in desire and
resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of so many
precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church.
May they then enter into Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the
Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love. . .
. We wait for them with open arms to return, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own,
their Father’s house. (emphasis ours)


Consider the first sentence. We think it very strange for the Holy Father to say that non-Catholics should "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation," as the translation would have us believe. The Pope appears to imply two things that are just not so: first, that non-Catholics have an outside chance of gaining salvation where they are; and second, that Catholics can be sure of their salvation. Neither of these implications has ever been a teaching of the Church. In fact, the proposition that Catholics can be sure even of their justification was condemned by the Council of Trent. (Decree on Justification, Chapter IX)

But this is a weak, misleading translation. The original Latin reads: ". . . ab eo statuse eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse nonpossunt;" Translated correctly, the Pope asks that non-Catholics be. . .


. . . zealous and eager to tear themselves out of that state in which it is not possible for
them to be without fear regarding their eternal salvation.


The adjective securi means "free from care, unconcerned, fearless." So, we see that the urgent request of the Pope that they "tear themselves out of " their periloussituation has been minimized to "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation."

Now, the second sentence: notice the phrase printed in italics. There is a deliberate mistranslation here which completely alters the obvious meaning of the Holy Father’s request. The Latin reads:

. . . quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticuм Redemptoris
Corpus ordinentur, . . .


The abused word is ordinentur. The book, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roy J. Deferrari, gives us the following meanings for the Latin verb ordino: "Ordino, are, avi, atum — (1) to order, to set in order, to arrange, to adjust,to dispose, (2) to ordain, . . . "

Since the Pope uses the subjunctive mood to express a contingency or uncertainty,not a fact, the translation should read:


For, even though they may be disposed toward (or ordained toward) the mystic Body of
the Redeemer by a certain unknowing desire and resolution,. . .


In other words, the only thing this "certain unknowing desire and resolution" (inscioquodam desiderio ac voto) may be doing for these non-Catholics is setting them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church.

In no way does the Pope say, as fact, that they are "related" to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, much less "united" to It.

Xavier, Our Lord said, in no uncertain terms, "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".

I don't understand why you do not believe Him. I don't understand why you are not content as you're supposed to be, that because He made the requirement, He will provide the sacrament to all who sincerely desire it - using the very same Providence He used for you and me and all the sacramentally baptized till the end of the world. 

After knowing that God made the sacrament a requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God, consider that God is displeased with you for saying over and over - and over and over - and over and over and over that the sacrament is not a requirement. For the good of your soul, please seriously consider this.