Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: OldMerry on March 11, 2017, 07:03:13 PM
-
The Matter of “Baptism of Desire”
...In order to think of the subject of baptism of desire, the following truths are worthy of our reflection:
1. Why angels and men prefer Hell to Heaven is called the Mystery of Iniquity; how angels were and men are saved is called the Salvific Will of God.
2. God's having granted the grace of salvation to the saints from all eternity is called Divine Predestination.
3. The reason for the creation of the material universe is the repopulation of the heavenly court, after the fall of the angels.
4. Almighty God therefore creates men in order to save them.
5. God is absolute goodness and Love Itself; but His ways are inscrutable.
6. God wants the salvation of every man and the damnation of none.
7. God does everything in His power to save every man.
8. If any man is saved, it is because God saved him.
9, If any man is not saved, it is because he chose not to be saved.
10. God cannot bestow Heaven on a man who has no merits, who is not sanctified, even if, in the eyes of humans, he is "a good man."
11. A man cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church, because only the Church can sanctify him.
12. No man goes to Heaven unless he freely chooses it.
13. Even though a man must cooperate with God, he cannot save himself; his salvation is due to God, not himself, because anything in the supernatural order requires divine power.
14. No man goes to Hell unless he freely chooses it.
15. A man does not choose Hell instead of Heaven; he chooses his will instead of God's.
16. A man chooses to go to Hell in this life; he freely chooses to remain in Hell forever.
17. In Hell, no man blames anyone but himself for his damnation.
18. In Hell, they do not hate God, they resist Him; they hate themselves.
19. That in the Providence of God which a man does for his salvation is termed Divine Predestination. This means that God provides all the graces a man needs to be saved because He knew from eternity that the man would accept them.
20. It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.
21, The reason God does not give efficacious grace to those who will be lost is that they would not accept it; this is the same reason God does not give grace to those in Hell.
22. The reason the punishment of Hell is eternal is that neither the demons nor damned humans cease to resist God.
23, God grants the Faith to those who will accept it; those who He knows will not accept it He leaves in ignorance of it; this ignorance is not "invincible;" it is culpable.
24. It is impossible for us to know or to understand God's dealings with all others; we understand poorly God's dealing with ourselves.
25. Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.
26. Hell is the necessity of divine justice, which is worthy of all praise.
27. In His passion and death, God revealed with forceful clarity how much He wishes to save every man. He gave expression to this consuming desire when He exclaimed: "I thirst" (Jn. 19:28). He ordained that His legs should not be broken, but that His Heart should be opened that the Church of salvation could be born.
28. The millions who will abide in Limbo forever teach us that no one has the right to the grace of salvation.
Among the many divisions which divide Traditionalist Catholics is that which deals with the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation ("Outside the Church there is no salvation," Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). I treated of this Doctrine at great length in my book, Who Shall Ascend?, Part I. Though the effort is far from perfect, I think it is worth reading. What follows is an effort to compress some of the ideas expressed there into a few paragraphs.
The controversy centers on what is required for salvation, particularly, the issue of Baptism. There is a liberal group and a "conservative" group. The liberal group maintains what the Baltimore Catechism teaches, that there are three forms of Baptism: Baptism of water, of blood, and of desire. Those of this persuasion maintain that it is possible for one to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism (Baptism of water), that what are termed "baptism of blood," the martyrdom of an unbaptized believer, and "baptism of desire," a desire for Baptism. Obviously, the unbaptized martyr has the desire for Baptism (presuming there have been such).
"Baptism of desire" is variously defined. Some think that there has to be a belief in some or all the doctrines of the Catholic religion, implicit or explicit, and a specific desire and/or an intention or resolve to receive Catholic Baptism. Most Catholics nowadays, however, (who give any thought to the matter at all) think that an unbaptized person can and will be saved without any real desire or intention to receive the Sacrament, or enter the Church, provided he is willing to do whatever God requires him to do. The reason he does not do it is that he is ignorant of what God wants him to do. As to what God requires men to do for salvation, from something to nothing, that also is a matter that is open for endless discussion.
Opposed to this position (or these positions) are those who contend that, after faith, the very essential act which God requires for salvation is entrance into the Catholic Church through the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. This is their understanding of the formula, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation," and of Our Lord's words to Nicodemus: "Amen, Amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom" (Jn. 3:5).
It cannot be denied that the two positions are poles apart. The liberal position boils down to this: God will not deny Heaven to any man who does "the best that he knows how." This means that countless millions of men from every generation and place and race and religion, even atheists, can and will be saved. It includes practically everybody.
Those of the liberal view vehemently deny that their position "boils down" to the foregoing, but, the truth of the matter is, unless one adopts the strict interpretation of Our Lord's words, allowing no exceptions whatsoever, such is the bent of human beings that they will always widen loopholes to allow themselves and others (especially their relatives) the utmost latitude, and they will regard the "strict position" as intolerable and abhorrent.
The purpose of this writing is to deal seriously with the idea of "baptism of desire," which, in the mind of many "conservative-minded" Catholics, means that non-Catholics will be saved who, for want of a priest:
1. Make a perfect act of contrition at the time of their death; and/or:
2. Make an act of faith, wherein they profess belief in the Catholic religion and express to almighty God, implicitly or explicitly, the desire for Baptism.
In support of this position, those who adhere to it refer to the many catechisms which contain it, and to numerous saints who held it, and, the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."
The problem with this position is that:
1. Several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it.
2. Two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it.
3. There is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire."
4. None of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has, that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven.
5. There is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
6. If one can baptize oneself by "desire," why can one not baptize oneself with water?
When all is said and done, the undeniable fact is that "baptism of desire," which has been spoken of and written about favorably for many centuries, is a product of human creation. It was created "for sentimental reasons" and nothing else. It is an escape from, and a circuмvention of, the hard teaching of Christ. His teaching is that, in order to be saved:
1. A person must truly and firmly believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the teaching of His Gospel;
2. He must enter the Church by receiving Baptism, and
3. Having entered the Church, he must keep the Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church;
4. and attain a certain degree of the love of God, and persevere in this state till the end of his life.
The tradition which created and has maintained the fiction of "baptism of desire" arose from the realization of how few human beings would therefore be saved, a tiny percentage of mankind according to the de fide definitions of the Church. Divine Truth said:
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"
Matthew 7:13-14
Isaias counted the saved thus:
And the fruit thereof that shall be left upon it, shall be as one cluster of grapes, and as the shaking of the olive tree, two or three berries in the top of a bough, or four or five upon the top of the tree, saith the Lord the God of Israel. Isaias 17:6
If the generative idea of "baptism of desire" is the alarm at the recognition of the fewness of the saved, the major premise which supports it is "invincible ignorance." Where "desire" takes the place of the water of Baptism, "invincible ignorance" takes the place of faith, and "good will" or "sincerity" takes the place of supernatural charity – the love of the Triune God in Christ. The thesis goes like this: God is infinitely good and merciful. He desires the salvation of every man. He will, therefore, save everyone He can. Therefore, in all cases where men do not know what they must do for salvation, it is within His power to waive the requirements which He Himself laid down in the Gospel. It is within His power to supply whatever is wanting, so long as the man is sincerely ignorant and perfectly willing to do whatever is required for salvation. His problem is invincible: through no fault of his own, he simply does not know what God wants him to do.
Another form of the thesis is: God is infinitely good and merciful. He desires the salvation of every man. In the case where a man (like a catechumen) accepts the Faith, dies before he can receive Baptism, He waives the need thereof. Exponents of this thesis love to quote the Scripture which says: "Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear" (Isaias 59:1).
The problem with this thesis is that it is human reasoning, not supernatural mystery, which is why there is nothing in the Scriptures which bespeaks or validates it. It contradicts directly and completely the words of Christ, Who is the Savior of the world. Nor is there anything in the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition which explains how God can waive His own requisites for salvation. His requirements are not merely a list of items which have no significance, not purely arbitrary hurdles, which have somehow to be surmounted or put aside.
The liberal view conceives the prerequisites for salvation as a kind of ticket of admission into Heaven. If almighty God determines in a particular case that the ticket is not required, since Heaven is His, it is within His right and power simply to dispense with the need of a ticket. The result of this divine openhandedness (and contradictoriness) is, obviously, that the number of those conceivably admitted into Heaven without a ticket exceeds the number of those who have one so greatly as to make having a ticket pointless. (Some people from Mexico are going through the process of naturalization, while their fellow countrymen are swarming over the Rio Grande.) To abandon the simile, the result is to make all those who have had the Faith, and struggled with the greatest difficulty to practice it, history's biggest fools, supreme among these being the great saints and martyrs who suffered incalculable labors, trials, privations, and most painful tortures, with the absurd notion that God required these things of them for salvation.
In the prosaic image given above, the only relevant difference between those who have a ticket and those who do not is the ticket itself, as in the case of those entering an arena or a theater. In reality, the fulfillment of the requisites for salvation determines the nature of the person who is either to be admitted into Heaven and him who will not be. The person who has fulfilled the conditions laid down by Christ in the Scriptures is one who has been so transformed that he is worthy of Heaven and belongs there; whereas any person who has not fulfilled these requirements is not worthy of it and can make no claim to belong there, and the only way that he may become worthy is by their fulfillment. God Himself is no more able to waive the requirements for salvation than He can lie. To dispense with the requirements in the case of one person would not only be an act of deception, it would be a contradiction in terms.
This is why the Church, at the Council of Trent, says that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary with "the necessity of means." Hereby the Church is saying that the Sacrament is as necessary as the soul is necessary for a living man. We say that infants and those who never reach the use of reason cannot go to Heaven without Baptism, even though nothing else but Baptism is required of them for salvation, because they are capable of nothing else. This means that the one and only thing required of such individuals is entrance into the Church.
The reason we say all this is that it is not a ticket which is essential for Heaven; it is a spiritual transformation, a quasi-divinization, and divine adoption.... The spiritual act whereby a man bestows "baptism of desire" upon himself can have one effect only: an act of contrition or an act of faith accompanied by the willingness to do whatever God requires of him for salvation can bring about the forgiveness of his sins, both original and actual; nothing more. This is called the state of justification. It means that the individual is "out of debt" toward almighty God. He is, so to speak, "out of the red and in the black," but he has no credits; no liabilities, no assets; fit for Limbo, but not for Heaven. More accurately, he is still nothing more than a natural man, instead of a fallen man. For salvation, one must be a "supernatural man," "another Christ," a partaker of the divine nature of Christ, the God-Man. He must be conformed to Christ, he must be able to claim the infinite merits of Christ as his own; he must be a sanctified man, endowed with the virtues of Christ, a man who "deserves" the ineffable reward of Heaven, the everlasting vision of God.
It is impossible for a sinful man to bestow these properties and rights upon himself. Those who believe that there is such a thing as "baptism of desire" do not realize how great a thing the granting of salvation is, or even the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism.
The Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation cannot be understood, because, like all of the sacred doctrines, it is a mystery. The mystery here is how it is just and loving on the part of God to establish such a dispensation whereby such a small number of human beings will be saved, even though anyone can be saved who wants to be.
The reason that, in this regard, we cannot speak of "invincible ignorance" is that God has all power to speak to every human being as directly as he speaks to himself, by the Holy Ghost. If God wants to tell him anything, He can do it by an internal voice; that He does speak to His beloved children in this way, everyone who has the Faith can testify. (He speaks to us all the time!) We must conclude that if anyone does not "get the message," it can only be because he chooses not to listen to it, or believe it.
The idea that an individual died before he was able to receive the Sacrament of Baptism is equally curious, because it is God who determines how long each of us shall live to the second. And it is God Who in His most benevolent Providence grants Baptism to everyone who receives it. Is He a monster (for Whom nothing is impossible or difficult) who instructs certain individuals in the absolute necessity of Baptism, grants them the grace of wishing it, then cuts off their life so that they can never receive it? And then casts them into Hell forever for not having received it? No, on the very contrary. He is an all-loving God, Who most certainly provides to the responsive all that is needful to them. If they are truly desirous of Baptism, if need be, He will provide it, even by a miracle. (It is a miracle to us, but not to Him.) This is what the Scripture means when it says, "The hand of the Lord is not shortened" (Isaias 59:1).
-
Fr Wathen argued bravely and heroically for the Mass of Ages, but also he spoke against the theological decay and decadence which led to the horrifying outcome of the Second Vatican Council, and before even the Council, incidents like Cardinal Cushing's persecution of Fr Feeney then SJ and later MICM. This concept of 'Baptism of Desire' makes it pointless to be Catholic, in fact the luckiest is some cannibalistic South Seas islander ignorant of the Faith. The very last paragraph handily shows the foolishness of the advocates of Rahnerite Anonymous Christianity and Universal Salvation, those who use the term Feeneyite :facepalm::
The idea that an individual died before he was able to receive the Sacrament of Baptism is equally curious, because it is God who determines how long each of us shall live to the second. And it is God Who in His most benevolent Providence grants Baptism to everyone who receives it. Is He a monster (for Whom nothing is impossible or difficult) who instructs certain individuals in the absolute necessity of Baptism, grants them the grace of wishing it, then cuts off their life so that they can never receive it? And then casts them into Hell forever for not having received it? No, on the very contrary. He is an all-loving God, Who most certainly provides to the responsive all that is needful to them. If they are truly desirous of Baptism, if need be, He will provide it, even by a miracle. (It is a miracle to us, but not to Him.) This is what the Scripture means when it says, "The hand of the Lord is not shortened" (Isaias 59:1).
It is a long enough piece, but it repays reading, it's wonderful.
-
This concept of 'Baptism of Desire' makes it pointless to be Catholic, in fact the luckiest is some cannibalistic South Seas islander ignorant of the Faith.
Not Thomistic Baptism of Desire ... which applies only to those who intend to become Catholic and have all the other dispositions necessary to be Catholic except for having received the Sacrament itself in actu.
But the pernicious Cushingite BoDers like bosco and bumpkin care NOTHING for the rare individual who might meet these conditions; no, their intent is PRECISELY to have included in the Church the very cannibal you describe.
-
Even though I myself have gone back and forth on this issue, I will say this in defense of the followers of the Dimonds and Fr. Feeney:
When a person tries to posit invincible ignorance or good will as a REASON for God to save them, it would help if you all took the Augustinian route:
"SO you're a Pelagian?"
"What?"
"Yes, you believe God decides to whom he will give his grace based on human merit."
"Well, I mean, God must choose which of the invincibly ignorant to save on some basis, how does he distinguish between them then?"
"The basis of his choice is his own good pleasure. It is a heresy to say that God's choices are reactions to his creatures. He chooses us for no other reason than he wants to. And he abandons the sinner for no other reason than their sinfulness."
"That's Calvinist."
"No, it's Catholic, Augustine and Aquinas to be exact. You have it all backwards. You think that if a person is invincibly ignorant that God has to take extra steps and respond to his condition in an extraordinary way. On the contrary, God has eternally elected whom he will and will not save. Those who die in actual ignorance of the truths of the faith simply are not among the elect. God, in his consequent will, Chose not to grant them knowledge of the truth because he wished to manifest in them his justice and foresaw their wickedness. And it is justice. Those who are ignorant are under the punishment of both actual and original sin. And ignorance of the truth is a punishment for sin, even if it is invincible ignorance."
"So all those poor native Americans are lost who lived before Columbus?"
"For the most part yes, because it is a teaching of the fathers that the majority are simply lost. It is not the majority who will be saved. But God has willed to save some in order to show forth his mercy and to condemn others to show forth his justice, and all for his own glory, that men may honor his perfection and sovereignty."
I just think we need to emphasize that the Invincible ignorance people are often laboring under Pelagianism, like God needs to respond to his creatures and give them the salvation they so clearly deserve for all their hard work!
-
I just think we need to emphasize that the Invincible ignorance people are often laboring under Pelagianism, like God needs to respond to his creatures and give them the salvation they so clearly deserve for all their hard work!
You are correct, sir. And, as you can see, those deeper issues are our problem with most of these BoDers. They invariably promote Pelagianism. They invariably reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. They invariably reject Tridentine ecclesiology that the Church is a visible society whose members can be easily recognized. They instead adopted Vatican II/Protestant subsistence ecclesiology. They consider the Sacraments to be "helps" and "ordinary means" of salvation rather than being absolutely necessary by necessity of means. They really are heretics ... and I do not use that term lightly.
For those who can hold BoD in a Catholic/Thomistic sense, more power to you. So, for instance, I have ZERO problems with Arvinger. He believes in BoD ... but he strenuously rejects the Pelagianism and other heresies of the Cushingites. I have tremendous respect for him and ZERO problems.
-
Even though I myself have gone back and forth on this issue, I will say this in defense of the followers of the Dimonds and Fr. Feeney:
You have wavered on this issue, because you don't understand it (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
When a person tries to posit invincible ignorance or good will as a REASON for God to save them, it would help if you all took the Augustinian route:
Your whole fake conversation is based on the error that someone here recently is saying that invincible ignorance saves. IT DOES NOT. How many times do we have to say that?
I just think we need to emphasize that the Invincible ignorance people are often laboring under Pelagianism, like God needs to respond to his creatures and give them the salvation they so clearly deserve for all their hard work!
We also say that BoD is a mercy of God in the first place, so you are entirely off on this (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
-
Even though I myself have gone back and forth on this issue, I will say this in defense of the followers of the Dimonds and Fr. Feeney:
You have wavered on this issue, because you don't understand it (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
When a person tries to posit invincible ignorance or good will as a REASON for God to save them, it would help if you all took the Augustinian route:
Your whole fake conversation is based on the error that someone here recently is saying that invincible ignorance saves. IT DOES NOT. How many times do we have to say that?
I just think we need to emphasize that the Invincible ignorance people are often laboring under Pelagianism, like God needs to respond to his creatures and give them the salvation they so clearly deserve for all their hard work!
We also say that BoD is a mercy of God in the first place, so you are entirely off on this (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
On what basis is this mercy given to some and not to others? And what form does this mercy take?
-
We also say that BoD is a mercy of God in the first place, so you are entirely off on this (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
Bumphrey has no idea of what Pelagianism means (thinking that this is an adequate defense) -- and everyone does notice.
-
Your whole fake conversation is based on the error that someone here recently is saying that invincible ignorance saves. IT DOES NOT. How many times do we have to say that?
You are the clowns who kept on yammering about invincible ignorance (implying that it was salvific). I was the one who told you that it was moot to the discussion and to stop babbling about it. When drumming the concept of invincible ignorance, you imply that anyone who is not actively culpable of rejecting the faith are in a condition wherein they can be saved by virtue of that alone. That's your intent in promoting it. In fact, you twist Pius IX's teaching into Pelagianism in how you try to apply it. But it takes someone who's actually educated and competent in theology to take you to task over it. Then you finally back off.
You're claiming that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of truths necessary for salvation can be saved in that state. [Pelagianism]
WE are saying that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of these truths are in a position to be saved by the operation of divine light (to enlighten their ignorance) and are "in the way" of salvation. [Non-Pelagian]
So either we are right in interpreting Pius IX and the Catechism of St. Pius X, or else they are Pelagians as you claim. Hmmmm.
-
You're claiming that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of truths necessary for salvation can be saved in that state. [Pelagianism]
WE are saying that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of these truths are in a position to be saved by the operation of divine light (to enlighten their ignorance) and are "in the way" of salvation. [Non-Pelagian]
The Pelagian apostles of indifferentism ultimately do not believe that God has the power to enlighten the ignorant natives.
They reject the teaching of St. Leonard of Port Maurice:
http://olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid.
Orestes Brownson's explanation of the subject is also worth reading:
Did we reflect on what the Church is, did we consider her rank in the universe, her relation to God, the place she holds so to speak, in his affections, the bare thought of the salvation of a single soul not spiritually begotten of her should make us thrill with horror. It would give the lie to all God's providences, and subvert the whole economy of His grace. We need not start at this. All may have the Church for their mother, if they choose. Christ is in the Church, but He is also out of the Church. In the Church He is operating by His grace to save those who enter; out of her He operates also by His grace, or is ready to operate, in the hearts of all men, to supply the will and ability to come in. Do not imagine that God has only half done His work, that He has merely prepared His Church, fitted her up as a palace, filled her with good things, all things necessary for our salvation, when once we have entered, but that He has left us without the ability to find her out, or, having found her out, without ability to enter. He leaves nothing undone. No man has the natural ability to come into the Church, any more than he has the natural ability to save himself after he has come in. All before and all after is the work of God. We can do nothing of ourselves alone – make not even the first motion without His grace inciting and assisting us. Of no use would have been His Church – it would have been a mere mockery, or a splendid failure – if He had not provided for our entrance as well as for our salvation afterwards.
This quote from Brownson comes from They Fought the Good Fight http://loretopubs.org/they-fought-the-good-fight.html
-
You're claiming that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of truths necessary for salvation can be saved in that state. [Pelagianism]
WE are saying that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of these truths are in a position to be saved by the operation of divine light (to enlighten their ignorance) and are "in the way" of salvation. [Non-Pelagian]
The Pelagian apostles of indifferentism ultimately do not believe that God has the power to enlighten the ignorant natives.
They reject the teaching of St. Leonard of Port Maurice:
http://olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid.
Orestes Brownson's explanation of the subject is also worth reading:
Did we reflect on what the Church is, did we consider her rank in the universe, her relation to God, the place she holds so to speak, in his affections, the bare thought of the salvation of a single soul not spiritually begotten of her should make us thrill with horror. It would give the lie to all God's providences, and subvert the whole economy of His grace. We need not start at this. All may have the Church for their mother, if they choose. Christ is in the Church, but He is also out of the Church. In the Church He is operating by His grace to save those who enter; out of her He operates also by His grace, or is ready to operate, in the hearts of all men, to supply the will and ability to come in. Do not imagine that God has only half done His work, that He has merely prepared His Church, fitted her up as a palace, filled her with good things, all things necessary for our salvation, when once we have entered, but that He has left us without the ability to find her out, or, having found her out, without ability to enter. He leaves nothing undone. No man has the natural ability to come into the Church, any more than he has the natural ability to save himself after he has come in. All before and all after is the work of God. We can do nothing of ourselves alone – make not even the first motion without His grace inciting and assisting us. Of no use would have been His Church – it would have been a mere mockery, or a splendid failure – if He had not provided for our entrance as well as for our salvation afterwards.
This quote from Brownson comes from They Fought the Good Fight http://loretopubs.org/they-fought-the-good-fight.html
Amen! Now this leaves one question- is it reasonable or unreasonable to assume every act of enlightenment will be accompanied by baptism? Or maybe God wants to display his sovereignty by saving in a variety of ways? He certainly likes variety. Just look at birds.
-
Amen! Now this leaves one question- is it reasonable or unreasonable to assume every act of enlightenment will be accompanied by baptism? Or maybe God wants to display his sovereignty by saving in a variety of ways? He certainly likes variety. Just look at birds.
Well, I think that's the wrong question. We don't want to "assume" anything, especially based on whether WE consider it reasonable or unreasonable. We work with what God has revealed to us and draw conclusions therefrom.
-
Even though I myself have gone back and forth on this issue, I will say this in defense of the followers of the Dimonds and Fr. Feeney:
You have wavered on this issue, because you don't understand it (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
When a person tries to posit invincible ignorance or good will as a REASON for God to save them, it would help if you all took the Augustinian route:
Your whole fake conversation is based on the error that someone here recently is saying that invincible ignorance saves. IT DOES NOT. How many times do we have to say that?
I just think we need to emphasize that the Invincible ignorance people are often laboring under Pelagianism, like God needs to respond to his creatures and give them the salvation they so clearly deserve for all their hard work!
We also say that BoD is a mercy of God in the first place, so you are entirely off on this (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
On what basis is this mercy given to some and not to others? And what form does this mercy take?
The basis of mercy is God's boundless love. The form we are talking about is the grace of an act of perfect love & contrition.
-
Your whole fake conversation is based on the error that someone here recently is saying that invincible ignorance saves. IT DOES NOT. How many times do we have to say that?
You are the clowns who kept on yammering about invincible ignorance (implying that it was salvific). I was the one who told you that it was moot to the discussion and to stop babbling about it. When drumming the concept of invincible ignorance, you imply that anyone who is not actively culpable of rejecting the faith are in a condition wherein they can be saved by virtue of that alone. That's your intent in promoting it. In fact, you twist Pius IX's teaching into Pelagianism in how you try to apply it. But it takes someone who's actually educated and competent in theology to take you to task over it. Then you finally back off.
You're claiming that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of truths necessary for salvation can be saved in that state. [Pelagianism]
WE are saying that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of these truths are in a position to be saved by the operation of divine light (to enlighten their ignorance) and are "in the way" of salvation. [Non-Pelagian]
So either we are right in interpreting Pius IX and the Catechism of St. Pius X, or else they are Pelagians as you claim. Hmmmm.
We yammer about it, because you Feeneyites keep bringing it up and dishonestly try to say that we say invincible ignorance gives salvation. If you would stop dishonestly yammering in the first place it could be done with.
What don't you understand when I have clearly said that invincible ignorance of the true Church does not save, but that it merely is a pre-requisite for recieving BoD, which is rare? What don't you understand about that??
-
Even though I myself have gone back and forth on this issue, I will say this in defense of the followers of the Dimonds and Fr. Feeney:
You have wavered on this issue, because you don't understand it (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
When a person tries to posit invincible ignorance or good will as a REASON for God to save them, it would help if you all took the Augustinian route:
Your whole fake conversation is based on the error that someone here recently is saying that invincible ignorance saves. IT DOES NOT. How many times do we have to say that?
I just think we need to emphasize that the Invincible ignorance people are often laboring under Pelagianism, like God needs to respond to his creatures and give them the salvation they so clearly deserve for all their hard work!
We also say that BoD is a mercy of God in the first place, so you are entirely off on this (and Ladislaus doesn't notice).
On what basis is this mercy given to some and not to others? And what form does this mercy take?
The basis of mercy is God's boundless love. The form we are talking about is the grace of an act of perfect love & contrition.
Does God elect to salvation Ante Praevesta Merita? Before any consideration of the merits of man, or after consideration of merits and circuмstances? An act of perfect love and contrition are insufficient apart from faith. Does God dispel ignorance and grant faith in addition to hope and charity?
-
You're claiming that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of truths necessary for salvation can be saved in that state. [Pelagianism]
WE are saying that Pius IX teaches that people who suffer from invincible ignorance of these truths are in a position to be saved by the operation of divine light (to enlighten their ignorance) and are "in the way" of salvation. [Non-Pelagian]
The Pelagian apostles of indifferentism ultimately do not believe that God has the power to enlighten the ignorant natives.
They reject the teaching of St. Leonard of Port Maurice:
http://olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid.
Orestes Brownson's explanation of the subject is also worth reading:
Did we reflect on what the Church is, did we consider her rank in the universe, her relation to God, the place she holds so to speak, in his affections, the bare thought of the salvation of a single soul not spiritually begotten of her should make us thrill with horror. It would give the lie to all God's providences, and subvert the whole economy of His grace. We need not start at this. All may have the Church for their mother, if they choose. Christ is in the Church, but He is also out of the Church. In the Church He is operating by His grace to save those who enter; out of her He operates also by His grace, or is ready to operate, in the hearts of all men, to supply the will and ability to come in. Do not imagine that God has only half done His work, that He has merely prepared His Church, fitted her up as a palace, filled her with good things, all things necessary for our salvation, when once we have entered, but that He has left us without the ability to find her out, or, having found her out, without ability to enter. He leaves nothing undone. No man has the natural ability to come into the Church, any more than he has the natural ability to save himself after he has come in. All before and all after is the work of God. We can do nothing of ourselves alone – make not even the first motion without His grace inciting and assisting us. Of no use would have been His Church – it would have been a mere mockery, or a splendid failure – if He had not provided for our entrance as well as for our salvation afterwards.
This quote from Brownson comes from They Fought the Good Fight http://loretopubs.org/they-fought-the-good-fight.html
Amen! Now this leaves one question- is it reasonable or unreasonable to assume every act of enlightenment will be accompanied by baptism? Or maybe God wants to display his sovereignty by saving in a variety of ways? He certainly likes variety. Just look at birds.
Our Lord did say that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Dogmatic Church Councils have affirmed that Our Lord's words on the subject are to be taken literally. Also, it is only through baptism that a man can become a member of the Church, and there is no salvation outside the Church.
The letters of missionaries record many instances of people who died immediately after baptism, and the missionaries have said that they think that God preserved their life precisely for this purpose. http://eens123.blogspot.com/2009/08/their-life-had-only-been-preserved-by.html
St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: "Here (Ambon Island of Indonesia) there are altogether seven towns of Christians, all of which I went through and baptized all the newborn infants and the children not yet baptized. A great many of them died soon after their baptism, so that it was clear enough that their life had only been preserved by God until the entrance to eternal life should be opened to them." Coleridge, Henry. The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier. (1872) p. 375
Fr. De Smet, Dec. 9, 1845: "I have often remarked that many of the children seem to await baptism before winging their flight to heaven, for they die almost immediately after receiving the sacrament." Laveille, Eugene. The Life of Father de Smet, S. J. (1915) p. 93 "… over a hundred children and eleven old people were baptized. Many of the latter [the old people], who were carried on buffalo hides, seemed only to await this grace before going to rest in the bosom of God." Laveille, Eugene. The Life of Father de Smet, S. J. (1915) p. 172
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father."
-
We yammer about it, because you Feeneyites keep bringing it up and dishonestly try to say that we say invincible ignorance gives salvation. If you would stop dishonestly yammering in the first place it could be done with.
Look who the dishonest one is:
Someone who is in good faith in his errors, does NOT mean that he could be saved BY that system of errors, but in spite of them.
Then you have the superior temerity to accuse Pius IX of supporting your Pelagian heresy. However, YOU who are hoodwinked by the modernist clergy you follow, and I suspect I know who they are based on your quote, don't have the slightest clue what Pius IX is communicating when he uses the words "can...attain" salvation, since you have no clue of what "sufficient grace" means and the issues Pius IX contended with from the Jansenists and Calvinists at that time. Not to mention the more important issue of liberals'/modernists'/heretics' which you have fell in line with.
It really is Pelagianism. But it occurs to me, the fact that unbaptized infants are not saved actually speaks volumes. Why can't unbaptized infants be saved? Why can't God infuse faith in them apart from the sacrament along with hope and charity? Because all those things demand a response which the unbaptized infant cannot give, and in point of fact he has not empowered it to give. This means that the infusion of hope and charity must follow faith. Faith leads and charity and hope follow. We know this is true also because Trent says it. To have the virtue of faith is not enough to be justified.
But the presence of faith is the death of ignorance. Therefore none who are saved are ignorant of at least the fundamental truths of salvation such as Christ and the Trinity. No one is saved inspiteof anything. If they die in ignorance they simply are not saved. They simply are not elect.
-
We yammer about it, because you Feeneyites keep bringing it up and dishonestly try to say that we say invincible ignorance gives salvation. If you would stop dishonestly yammering in the first place it could be done with.
Look who the dishonest one is:
Someone who is in good faith in his errors, does NOT mean that he could be saved BY that system of errors, but in spite of them.
Then you have the superior temerity to accuse Pius IX of supporting your Pelagian heresy. However, YOU who are hoodwinked by the modernist clergy you follow, and I suspect I know who they are based on your quote, don't have the slightest clue what Pius IX is communicating when he uses the words "can...attain" salvation, since you have no clue of what "sufficient grace" means and the issues Pius IX contended with from the Jansenists and Calvinists at that time. Not to mention the more important issue of liberals'/modernists'/heretics' which you have fell in line with.
Apparently you don't even know what "in spite of" means. Go look it up.
-
We yammer about it, because you Feeneyites keep bringing it up and dishonestly try to say that we say invincible ignorance gives salvation. If you would stop dishonestly yammering in the first place it could be done with.
Look who the dishonest one is:
Someone who is in good faith in his errors, does NOT mean that he could be saved BY that system of errors, but in spite of them.
Then you have the superior temerity to accuse Pius IX of supporting your Pelagian heresy. However, YOU who are hoodwinked by the modernist clergy you follow, and I suspect I know who they are based on your quote, don't have the slightest clue what Pius IX is communicating when he uses the words "can...attain" salvation, since you have no clue of what "sufficient grace" means and the issues Pius IX contended with from the Jansenists and Calvinists at that time. Not to mention the more important issue of liberals'/modernists'/heretics' which you have fell in line with.
Apparently you don't even know what "in spite of" means. Go look it up.
So God saves without granting faith? Are those saved in this scheme faith-filled or no?
-
This concept of 'Baptism of Desire' makes it pointless to be Catholic, in fact the luckiest is some cannibalistic South Seas islander ignorant of the Faith.
Not Thomistic Baptism of Desire ... which applies only to those who intend to become Catholic and have all the other dispositions necessary to be Catholic except for having received the Sacrament itself in actu.
But the pernicious Cushingite BoDers like bosco and bumpkin care NOTHING for the rare individual who might meet these conditions; no, their intent is PRECISELY to have included in the Church the very cannibal you describe.
Thanks, my point was a little bit crudely done, but the sometimes subtle, sometimes crude meaning of BoD for those Cushingite Trads or Modernists who sneer 'Feeneyite' ends up by making the Church as Ark of Salvation something without meaning. That interpretation makes Catholicism pointless, a foolish burden. It ends with Universal Salvation, if its implications are worked through. St Thomas Aquinas did not espouse broad and vague understandings of doctrine. Yes, the commonality of terminology means the prestige of the Saint is used in support of something he would wholly reject.
-
Thanks, my point was a little bit crudely done, but the sometimes subtle, sometimes crude meaning of BoD for those Cushingite Trads or Modernists who sneer 'Feeneyite' ends up by making the Church as Ark of Salvation something without meaning. That interpretation makes Catholicism pointless, a foolish burden. It ends with Universal Salvation, if its implications are worked through.
If I may,
the issue is even worse than Universal Salvation; it is entirely possible that the True Church is actually an impediment to salvation! Consider the dying "invincible ignorant" who is on his death bed. He's lived as a chaste Buddhist monk who "implicitly" desires baptism. If a Catholic missionary were to visit him now, he must reject his life long devil worship (Buddhism), concede that all of his past actions and thoughts have no merit in eternity, and submit to a Church who's head he has never even heard of. Alas for the poor man who was on his way to heaven but now, this stranger's words are too much for him and he's off to hell. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is an impediment to salvation! This is blasphemy!
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Thanks, my point was a little bit crudely done, but the sometimes subtle, sometimes crude meaning of BoD for those Cushingite Trads or Modernists who sneer 'Feeneyite' ends up by making the Church as Ark of Salvation something without meaning. That interpretation makes Catholicism pointless, a foolish burden. It ends with Universal Salvation, if its implications are worked through.
If I may,
the issue is even worse than Universal Salvation; it is entirely possible that the True Church is actually an impediment to salvation! Consider the dying "invincible ignorant" who is on his death bed. He's lived as a chaste Buddhist monk who "implicitly" desires baptism. If a Catholic missionary were to visit him now, he must reject his life long devil worship (Buddhism), concede that all of his past actions and thoughts have no merit in eternity, and submit to a Church who's head he has never even heard of. Alas for the poor man who was on his way to heaven but now, this stranger's words are too much for him and he's off to hell. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is an impediment to salvation! This is blasphemy!
God bless,
JoeZ
See, that very real response from within the heart of the monk is actually a sign of reprobation, because those who are of the truth hear his voice.
The Cushingites say with Christ, "Other Sheep I have that are not of this fold." And then silence the Catholics who say, "Them also must I gather; and there will be one fold and one shepherd."
-
Thanks, my point was a little bit crudely done, but the sometimes subtle, sometimes crude meaning of BoD for those Cushingite Trads or Modernists who sneer 'Feeneyite' ends up by making the Church as Ark of Salvation something without meaning. That interpretation makes Catholicism pointless, a foolish burden. It ends with Universal Salvation, if its implications are worked through.
If I may,
the issue is even worse than Universal Salvation; it is entirely possible that the True Church is actually an impediment to salvation! Consider the dying "invincible ignorant" who is on his death bed. He's lived as a chaste Buddhist monk who "implicitly" desires baptism. If a Catholic missionary were to visit him now, he must reject his life long devil worship (Buddhism), concede that all of his past actions and thoughts have no merit in eternity, and submit to a Church who's head he has never even heard of. Alas for the poor man who was on his way to heaven but now, this stranger's words are too much for him and he's off to hell. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is an impediment to salvation! This is blasphemy!
God bless,
JoeZ
This! :applause:
-
Apparently you don't even know what "in spite of" means. Go look it up.
Of course I do, who are you trying to be now? Cill Blinton
He was saved in spite of his ignorance. Period! That is what you are saying.
BH loves changing the meaning of words, it's his thing, it's what he does.
-
Apparently you don't even know what "in spite of" means. Go look it up.
Of course I do, who are you trying to be now? Cill Blinton
He was saved in spite of his ignorance. Period! That is what you are saying.
BH loves changing the meaning of words, it's his thing, it's what he does.
Is that what you really perceived multiple times? You didn't mention it before. I know why; because you know if you brought it up I would easily show you your failure to perceive correctly. It's what you do.
-
We yammer about it, because you Feeneyites keep bringing it up and dishonestly try to say that we say invincible ignorance gives salvation. If you would stop dishonestly yammering in the first place it could be done with.
Look who the dishonest one is:
Someone who is in good faith in his errors, does NOT mean that he could be saved BY that system of errors, but in spite of them.
Then you have the superior temerity to accuse Pius IX of supporting your Pelagian heresy. However, YOU who are hoodwinked by the modernist clergy you follow, and I suspect I know who they are based on your quote, don't have the slightest clue what Pius IX is communicating when he uses the words "can...attain" salvation, since you have no clue of what "sufficient grace" means and the issues Pius IX contended with from the Jansenists and Calvinists at that time. Not to mention the more important issue of liberals'/modernists'/heretics' which you have fell in line with.
Apparently you don't even know what "in spite of" means. Go look it up.
Of course I do, who are you trying to be now? Cill Blinton
He was saved in spite of his ignorance. Period! That is what you are saying.
I said "system of errors" and now you turn it into "ignorance"!! You cannot even get something as simple as this straight right here, never mind understanding perennial teaching.
-
We yammer about it, because you Feeneyites keep bringing it up and dishonestly try to say that we say invincible ignorance gives salvation. If you would stop dishonestly yammering in the first place it could be done with.
Look who the dishonest one is:
Someone who is in good faith in his errors, does NOT mean that he could be saved BY that system of errors, but in spite of them.
Then you have the superior temerity to accuse Pius IX of supporting your Pelagian heresy. However, YOU who are hoodwinked by the modernist clergy you follow, and I suspect I know who they are based on your quote, don't have the slightest clue what Pius IX is communicating when he uses the words "can...attain" salvation, since you have no clue of what "sufficient grace" means and the issues Pius IX contended with from the Jansenists and Calvinists at that time. Not to mention the more important issue of liberals'/modernists'/heretics' which you have fell in line with.
Apparently you don't even know what "in spite of" means. Go look it up.
Of course I do, who are you trying to be now? Cill Blinton
He was saved in spite of his ignorance. Period! That is what you are saying.
I said "system of errors" and now you turn it into "ignorance"!! You cannot even get something as simple as this straight right here, never mind understanding perennial teaching.
A system of errors in this case is not the product of invincible ignorance? Then it must be negligence and they are condemned for unbelief.
-
If I may,
the issue is even worse than Universal Salvation; it is entirely possible that the True Church is actually an impediment to salvation! Consider the dying "invincible ignorant" who is on his death bed. He's lived as a chaste Buddhist monk who "implicitly" desires baptism. If a Catholic missionary were to visit him now, he must reject his life long devil worship (Buddhism), concede that all of his past actions and thoughts have no merit in eternity, and submit to a Church who's head he has never even heard of. Alas for the poor man who was on his way to heaven but now, this stranger's words are too much for him and he's off to hell. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is an impediment to salvation! This is blasphemy!
God bless,
JoeZ
.
Very well said! Thank you.