Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: parentsfortruth on June 15, 2011, 09:02:00 PM
-
Had to share this. So many good points, and so much factual information contained here.
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
-
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!
On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.
Just asking!
-
Man, I have an 80-year old friend. EIGHTY. He became a sede last year and goes to the CMRI. Today he calls me; his neighbor gave him some material from the Dimonds, about the "heretical CMRI." He finds it brilliant.
Dimonds, if you are reading this, think about what you're doing. Think hard. Any doubts deep down in there? Because you have an awful lot to answer for.
-
The Diamonds are wrong for keeping the faithful away from valid sacraments... Ironically, and unfortunately, the same could be said for dogmatic sedevecantists.. It seems its only a matter of time that the spirit of Dogmatic SVism leads all of its followers to the same mentality the Diamonds keep...
-
The Diamonds are wrong for keeping the faithful away from valid sacraments... Ironically, and unfortunately, the same could be said for dogmatic sedevecantists.. It seems its only a matter of time that the spirit of Dogmatic SVism leads all of its followers to the same mentality the Diamonds keep...
Perfect example of a really rash and stupid comment.
-
Rash, perhaps. Stupid- no; I spoke only from personal experience.
-
Rash, perhaps. Stupid- no; I spoke only from personal experience.
Rash is sinful. Stupid is excusable.
...leads all of its followers to the same mentality the Diamonds keep...
-
Yes SJB... I was speaking of "dogmatic sedevecantists"... this type of holier-than-thou thinking leads many into further heresy. Somone who believes you must believe the pope is not the pope to be saved is already in heresy.. why would you defend that position? Am I wrong?
-
Sorry, but where did the Dimond brothers come into this? This isn't from their website.
-
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!
On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.
Just asking!
Why don't you email Mr. Kelly about it? I'm sure he's got a very good answer for that question. :) :smile:
-
I thought the Dimonds gave a good argument, however, I had to realize that we were taught about Baptism of Desire in the fifties. That was the teaching of the Church as I remember prevatican2.
We were taught that if you died for the Faith that you would go straight to Heaven. We were also taught that there was "invincible ignorance".
That is what I learned.
Now since v2, its an issue and the remnant faithful that should be united are divided over it.
Now some are fighting that the popes prior to 1500s are the only true Popes and all those souls coming after are condemned!
I feel very confused, majority of the time.
-
There's no need to be confused. I don't know of a single theologian in the last three hundred years who taught what the Dimonds do. It is an error that sounds convincing because it sounds so opposed to Vatican II -- that's all.
In Europe, there are almost no Feeneyites, it's almost exclusively American. I've heard of one German Feeneyite, that's it.
-
It is an American thing, yes.
-
It's an erroneous reaction against rendering the dogma 'outside the Church there is no salvation' into a meaningless formula. The men who erroneously deny baptism of desire/blood understand there is a problem to be addressed, but they have misled themselves into thinking the cause of the problem is this doctrine when in reality the actual source of the problem is an erroneous ecclesiology. If they want to address the real issue, they will turn their attention to the theology of the Church, not in making rash denials of long established Catholic doctrine.
-
I still don't see how this article relates to the Dimond brothers....
-
Probably because they are the main proponents of the error which denies salvation through desire for baptism, when one dies before being able to receive the latter. If that error were true, then the fathers would not have let catechumens wait for baptism in order to instruct them in the faith first, especially when there was a great chance of being martyred in those times. They would have baptised them immediately, in the way it must be done to infants. It is common sense really.
-
Do you think the Diamonds ever feel/ felt like they're in too deep with their ridiculous remarks that they couldn't (wouldn't) go back? I do...
-
Absolutely, S2srea.
That is how the devil snares people. They haven't just posted their theories on a message board, they have turned it into a cottage industry -- their virtual identity. No anti-BoD, no Dimond Bros. Their livelihood is also based on what they're doing, selling books, probably asking for donations.
I say nothing about the Dimonds specifically, but not only will people sell their souls for power; they will sell their souls for imagined power, power they don't really even have, or for the chance at power. It can become an addiction to be talked about, to be noticed, even if you're being noticed for the wrong thing.
There is a reason certain saints would flee from the priesthood and would try to escape and go wash dishes or something. Look at how many priests went along with Vatican II, who didn't buck the tide at all. You have to be ready at all times to walk away and leave everything if your faith is compromised.
Some people are made famous by God; others make themselves famous. He knows who He is raising up. But sometimes to us it can be tricky to figure out who is a sham and who is truly called.
-
I wanted to know what people thought about the article, not about the dogmatic lame-os named the Dimond "brothers."
Here's from the article as far as the catechumens goes. Check it out:
What Saint Augustine expressed about baptism of desire in his treatise against the Donatists was not his conviction when he wrote his commentary on the Gospel of Saint John. Therein, he states that “no matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (Chapter 13, Tract 7) Again, Father van der Meer, in his book, Augustine the Bishop, cites a like passage from the doctor: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever” (Page 150). Note here that Augustine was not referring to hesitant catechumens who presumptuously put off their baptism, but to “sincere catechumens.”
-
“How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever”
What was the context in which St. Augustine wrote this sentence?
Is it from the Summa Theologica? If so it should be online somewhere.
-
St. Thomas wrote the Summa, Darcy.
As far as St. Augustine goes, he lived in the 5th century. What people need to understand is that he is not the last word, anymore than St. Bernard was the last word on the Immaculate Conception ( which he denied ).
I urge everyone to study the concept of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. When a majority of bishops and theologians all agree on a certain point, it could be said to have become a dogma of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. That is my understanding of it at the moment.
It is undeniable that the concept of invincible ignorance is taught by all theologians of the last three hundred years, or almost all. If that isn't enough, Pius IX mentioned it in two encyclicals! While it may have been possible for St. Augustine to have doubts, that possibility has disappeared. As for baptism of desire, that has been taught by almost everybody since St. Thomas. Even at my most prideful I never questioned baptism of desire. I honestly don't know how anyone can get to that point -- it's a little scary. To go against St. Thomas AND St. Alphonsus AND every other theologian of the last thousand years whsoe name has come down to us?
-
I wanted to know what people thought about the article, not about the dogmatic lame-os named the Dimond "brothers."
Here's from the article as far as the catechumens goes. Check it out:
What Saint Augustine expressed about baptism of desire in his treatise against the Donatists was not his conviction when he wrote his commentary on the Gospel of Saint John. Therein, he states that “no matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (Chapter 13, Tract 7) Again, Father van der Meer, in his book, Augustine the Bishop, cites a like passage from the doctor: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever” (Page 150). Note here that Augustine was not referring to hesitant catechumens who presumptuously put off their baptism, but to “sincere catechumens.”
Here's the full citation from Augustine's Commentary on St. John:
"But some one will say, “It were enough, then, that John baptized only the Lord; what need was there for others to be baptized by John?” Now we have said this too, that if John had baptized only the Lord, men would not be without this thought, that John had a better baptism than the Lord had. They would say, in fact, “So great was the baptism of John, that Christ alone was worthy to be baptized therewith.” Therefore, to show that the baptism which the Lord was to give was better than that of John,— that the one might be understood as that of a servant, the other as that of the Lord,— the Lord was baptized to give an example of humility; but He was not the only one baptized by John, lest John's baptism should appear to be better than the baptism of the Lord. To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace, should disdain to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord. For whatever the catechumen's proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism. Just as the people Israel were not rid of the Egyptians until they had come to the Red Sea, so no man is rid of the pressure of sins until he has come to the font of baptism." (13,7)
It is Catholic dogma that sins are forgiven by the laver of regeneration. Baptism of desire doesn't negate this truth at all. Therefore, to speak objectively saying, "You must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" the very things the Catechumen's are working towards is a perfectly true and objective statement. To infer from this that it is impossible for the grace of Baptism to be received outside of the actual Sacrament in an exigent circuмstance is fallacious. The immediate context shows that he is warning Catechumens not to be presumptuous in claiming they have received an abundance of "some particular grace" as if to render the reception of Baptism optional.
Augustine can be easily harmonized when one does not have a preconceived agenda before reading his works. Part of St. Thomas' mastery of the Fathers was this very gift of reconciling certain apparently conflicting statements.
-
St. Thomas wrote the Summa, Darcy.
As far as St. Augustine goes, he lived in the 5th century. What people need to understand is that he is not the last word, anymore than St. Bernard was the last word on the Immaculate Conception ( which he denied ).
I urge everyone to study the concept of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. When a majority of bishops and theologians all agree on a certain point, it could be said to have become a dogma of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. That is my understanding of it at the moment.
It is undeniable that the concept of invincible ignorance is taught by all theologians of the last three hundred years, or almost all. If that isn't enough, Pius IX mentioned it in two encyclicals! While it may have been possible for St. Augustine to have doubts, that possibility has disappeared. As for baptism of desire, that has been taught by almost everybody since St. Thomas. Even at my most prideful I never questioned baptism of desire. I honestly don't know how anyone can get to that point -- it's a little scary. To go against St. Thomas AND St. Alphonsus AND every other theologian of the last thousand years whsoe name has come down to us?
Thanks, that's helpful. It will take awhile to hear/read things several times till it sinks in. :stare:
sorta like grad school except its not linear or organized....yet.
It seems that one can find some support for it or against with either Doctor of the Church. But it gets really nit-pickin'. To the point of vanity.
This is the Pope's job. :wink:
I should stop embarrassing myself and just resign.
:farmer:
I'm going to say prayers and go to sleep. The Lord Bless and keep you.
-
Some people are made famous by God; others make themselves famous. He knows who He is raising up. But sometimes to us it can be tricky to figure out who is a sham and who is truly called.
I agree with you Raoul. There seems to be something beautiful and humbling about those saints who fled popularity, whilst being open to God's will and find themselves in positions of great and holy influence.
-
I feel very confused, majority of the time.
You're not the only one! I too am so perplexed by this controversy, not necessarily because of the present-day polemics, but because it entails the two great mysteries that have perplexed theologians throughout the ages and the misunderstanding of which has led to many horrible errors and heresies: the great mysteries of grace and predestination.
I recommend Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's work Predestination. It sheds so much light upon this question. It has been reprinted by TAN Publications, but was originally published by the Herder Book Company sometime in the earlier half of the last century.
He is the best theologian who wrote after the Vatican Council [uh, the one convoked by Pope Pius IX], in my humble opinion.
-
He is the best theologian who wrote after the Vatican Council [uh, the one convoked by Pope Pius IX], in my humble opinion.
Better than Tanquerey? I think Tanquerey is in the St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus category.
-
Better than Tanquerey?
It's just my opinion, though I have to be honest and admit that I have a prejudice in favor of the Dominicans.
Rev. Fr. Tanquerey was a great theologian and to be recommended to all clerics and layfolk.
My favorite shall ever be Rev. Fr. Reginald, however.
-
I think Tanquerey helped me get over my scruple about invincible ignorance ( though it was mostly St. Vincent de Paul, hence he is my confirmation saint and my avatar, as I ascribe to him the change in my personality from my two stints on CathInfo ). I just had a hard time believing that Tanquerey could be dangerously wrong about anything. The calm and wisdom practically leap off the pages of the book I have by him, The Spiritual Life. It is so 19th century in a good way -- carved in stone, impossibly high-minded and noble, encouraging you to the highest standards. You don't just perceive intellectual power when you read Tanquerey, but grace and peace of mind.
-
I have a prejudice in favor of the Dominicans also. I didn't know Garrigou-Lagrange was a Dominican. Anyway, there are exceptions to every rule!
Someone told me that Mary once told someone that St. Dominic would have made a better husband for her than St. Joseph, ha ha. I wonder if that's true. St. Dominic is Spanish so of course I am going to favor him. Also he was an Inquisitor -- you don't get many Inquisitors who founded their own Holy Order and also got to introduce the Rosary to the world. Talk about a signal favor.
-
In order of excellence: 1. Garrigou-Lagrange 2. Tanquerey (except a quibble with his description of membership in the Church) 3. Msgr. Joseph Fenton (who almost single-handedly refuted false ecclesiology for over a decade in the pages of A.E.R.)
-
In order of excellence: 1. Garrigou-Lagrange 2. Tanquerey (except a quibble with his description of membership in the Church) 3. Msgr. Joseph Fenton (who almost single-handedly refuted false ecclesiology for over a decade in the pages of A.E.R.)
Yes! However, I have not read much of Msgr. Fenton, who was a student of Rev. Fr. Reginald, if memory serves right.
What are we to think of Rev. Fr. Matthias Scheeben?
-
Yes! However, I have not read much of Msgr. Fenton, who was a student of Rev. Fr. Reginald, if memory serves right.
What are we to think of Rev. Fr. Matthias Scheeben?
I think we should not compare theologians of different times.
He was certainly very influential in his defense of the Catholic religion in regard to the unity of faith and reason. In a time where either fideism or rationalism was dominant.
I also don´t think that we can classify him as a Thomist in the strict sense of the word, despite his strong connection to the Roman School. Some people even call him a "Hegel of Catholic theology", saying that he created a kind of theological late-Idealism or romanticist theology.
He is also very difficult in his language, making his writings on the mysteries sometimes quite mysterious!
What is largely unknown is his theory on the "self-termination of the teaching authority" through heresy. Only one or two sedevacantist authors picked that up - maybe also due to the fact that his writings are no longer very much known outside of the German speaking countries.
-
But certainly the French Jesuit and former Cardinal Louis Billot should not be forgotten there, probably the most influential person in the Thomist sector before Garrigou-Lagrange, and of course an ardent fighter of modernism and liberalism.
-
In order of excellence: 1. Garrigou-Lagrange 2. Tanquerey (except a quibble with his description of membership in the Church) 3. Msgr. Joseph Fenton (who almost single-handedly refuted false ecclesiology for over a decade in the pages of A.E.R.)
In which issue? Ecclesiology?
1) Garrigou`s dealing on membership in the Church is quite wrong... he followed Suarez! :boxer:
2) What was the problem with Tanquerey?
3) I like Billot, Fenton and Dom Grea :)
-
I also don´t think that we can classify him as a Thomist in the strict sense of the word, despite his strong connection to the Roman School. Some people even call him a "Hegel of Catholic theology", saying that he created a kind of theological late-Idealism or romanticist theology.
My impression of Rev. Fr. Scheeben is that he was to the study of Sacred Theology what Msgr. Knox was to the study of the Sacred Vulgate amongst the Anglophones: very beautifully and refreshingly coalescent, but with a certain unnerving novelty that necessitates a very thorough familiarity with the Douay-Rhemish translations in order to estimate its merit. So likewise, Rev. Fr. Scheeben ought not to be read without a previous solid foundation on Thomistic theology and philosophy.
He has been abused much by the theologians of the "Vatican II" era, who read him without a strong Thomistic foundation, or who sought him out as an alternative to the Thomism they sought to undermine.
He is also very difficult in his language, making his writings on the mysteries sometimes quite mysterious!
I love his language, though I have to read a sentence fives times on three non-consecutive occasions for me to fully comprehend the meaning thereof. His style embodies an Eleusinian sublimity that is as lovely and haunting as it is intimidating.
His notion of "super-nature" is truly ineffable.
What is largely unknown is his theory on the "self-termination of the teaching authority" through heresy. Only one or two sedevacantist authors picked that up - maybe also due to the fact that his writings are no longer very much known outside of the German speaking countries.
Oh, I'd like to know more about that when you have the opportunity to discuss it.
-
My impression of Rev. Fr. Scheeben is that he was to the study of Sacred Theology what Msgr. Knox was to the study of the Sacred Vulgate amongst the Anglophones: very beautifully and refreshingly coalescent, but with a certain unnerving novelty that necessitates a very thorough familiarity with the Douay-Rhemish translations in order to estimate its merit. So likewise, Rev. Fr. Scheeben ought not to be read without a previous solid foundation on Thomistic theology and philosophy.
He has been abused much by the theologians of the "Vatican II" era, who read him without a strong Thomistic foundation, or who sought him out as an alternative to the Thomism they sought to undermine.
You are probably right there.
I love his language, though I have to read a sentence fives times on three non-consecutive occasions for me to fully comprehend the meaning thereof. His style embodies an Eleusinian sublimity that is as lovely and haunting as it is intimidating.
His notion of "super-nature" is truly ineffable.
I never saw any of his writings in English, which must have a somewhat different notion due to the many latinisms in the English language. Scheeben must have invented hundreds of Neologisms and basically created the theological language of Germany.
Again, some people criticize him because of his de-latinization, creating a kind of theological ghetto for German divines.
Oh, I'd like to know more about that when you have the opportunity to discuss it.
I would love to do that, but unfortunately I don´t have the necessary literature available here. I will supply on a later date.
-
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!
On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.
Just asking!
No. If one dies before receiving water baptism, traditionally, the Church taught that such a person would end up in hell.
Typical of Perennial Magisterium teaching, She answered this question absolutely and for all time.
Our Lord made water a requirement explicitly. This requirement was echoed in Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. same as we confess absolute belief in at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before Almighty God that we believe there is only one baptism when we pray "confetior unam baptisma" in the Nicene Creed.
The Doctrine of Divine Providence of God teaches that God will never snatch from this life, one who is sincere without that person first receiving the most necessary of all the Sacraments - baptism with water.
If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
-
I suppose your screename is well chosen.
-
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!
On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.
Just asking!
No. If one dies before receiving water baptism, traditionally, the Church taught that such a person would end up in hell.
Typical of Perennial Magisterium teaching, She answered this question absolutely and for all time.
Our Lord made water a requirement explicitly. This requirement was echoed in Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. same as we confess absolute belief in at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before Almighty God that we believe there is only one baptism when we pray "confetior unam baptisma" in the Nicene Creed.
The Doctrine of Divine Providence of God teaches that God will never snatch from this life, one who is sincere without that person first receiving the most necessary of all the Sacraments - baptism with water.
If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
Just a comment, my understanding of "one baptism" the words you underlined above, means there is only One Lord, One Faith, and that Faith is Catholic, therefore anyone properly baptised is baptised Catholic, even if baptised properly in a Protestant church. The keyword being "properly" otherwise if not properly it is not a baptism at all in the eyes of God.
-
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!
On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.
Just asking!
No. If one dies before receiving water baptism, traditionally, the Church taught that such a person would end up in hell.
Typical of Perennial Magisterium teaching, She answered this question absolutely and for all time.
Our Lord made water a requirement explicitly. This requirement was echoed in Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. same as we confess absolute belief in at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before Almighty God that we believe there is only one baptism when we pray "confetior unam baptisma" in the Nicene Creed.
The Doctrine of Divine Providence of God teaches that God will never snatch from this life, one who is sincere without that person first receiving the most necessary of all the Sacraments - baptism with water.
If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
Just a comment, my understanding of "one baptism" the words you underlined above, means there is only One Lord, One Faith, and that Faith is Catholic, therefore anyone properly baptised is baptised Catholic, even if baptised properly in a Protestant church. The keyword being "properly" otherwise if not properly it is not a baptism at all in the eyes of God.
Absolutely.
Even little protestant infants who are baptized and die before they reach the age of reason are saved! Baptism made them Catholic!
Folks who adhere to BOD completely neglect or completely pervert the Doctrine of Divine Providence - "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.
-
I suppose your screename is well chosen.
I think it is.
-
Folks who adhere to BOD completely neglect or completely pervert the Doctrine of Divine Providence - "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.
When one, whoever they may be, receives the graces of baptism in a circuмstance where they could not receive the actual sacrament is an act of Fatherly Providence par excellence.
-
Folks who adhere to BOD completely neglect or completely pervert the Doctrine of Divine Providence - "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.
When one, whoever they may be, receives the graces of baptism in a circuмstance where they could not receive the actual sacrament is an act of Fatherly Providence par excellence.
Two problems with this:
1) one cannot receive the graces of baptism until they are baptized.
2) the doctrine of Divine Providence teaches that circuмstances are not the result of fate and cannot happen by chance since God authors all "circuмstances". Divine Providence ensures that each human is guaranteed to receive what we sincerely desire, provided it's necessary for our salvation.
-
1. Begs the question.
2. If you miss Mass on Sunday because you are too ill to go, do you committ a mortal sin? Is that a slip of Providence or the result of fate? If the former, it is no fault of your own, though you impute a fault to God, if the latter the question of free will is entirely removed. What's a man to do?
-
If your immediate salvation depended on you're attendance at mass, depend on God to provide mass for you.
-
What do you mean by "immediate salvation"? What do you mean he will "provide it"? Does it not pertain to the 1st Commandment to worship God? Is not missing Mass a mortal sin that will damn you to hell for all eternity? Why would God allow a man to miss Mass, nay even positively will it for physical evil is willed by God, if his salvation depended upon it? On top of that, have you ever made a Spiritual Communion? How can you explain the fact that one can receive the effects of Holy Communion without physically receiving the Sacrament? Have you any notion of perfect contrition coupled with at least an implicit desire for the Sacrament of Penance which forgives sin as if one had received the Sacrament itself? How do you explain these things in light of your "doctrine of Providence"? How do you explain the fact that these doctrines have been taught by all theologians for over 1,000 years without ever being censured by the Church?
-
What do you mean by "immediate salvation"?
As is the case regarding the typical opinion for BOD, immediate salvation = when in imminent danger of death.
What do you mean he will "provide it"?
Divine = God
Providence = Provides
God will not deny any necessity for salvation to anyone who is sincere, He absolutely will provide what the person desires.
If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
Does it not pertain to the 1st Commandment to worship God? Is not missing Mass a mortal sin that will damn you to hell for all eternity? Why would God allow a man to miss Mass, nay even positively will it for physical evil is willed by God, if his salvation depended upon it?
FWIW, your particular quote above is no argument to me. The reason is very simple. I have had the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass handed to me on a silver platter nearly my whole life through no merit of my own. Without fail, God Provides what we need as long as we seek it sincerely.
On top of that, have you ever made a Spiritual Communion? How can you explain the fact that one can receive the effects of Holy Communion without physically receiving the Sacrament?
Yes, I've made Spiritual Communions whenever I couldn't make it to Mass - but making a Spiritual Communion before death would not save my soul if I died and had mortal sin on my soul.
Have you any notion of perfect contrition coupled with at least an implicit desire for the Sacrament of Penance which forgives sin as if one had received the Sacrament itself?
Don't forget that I am a Catholic, I have been to confession many, many times, I've received the Sacrament of Confirmation, I have the Church, Our Blessed Mother, the saints, Sacramentals and I've assisted at the Holy Sacrifice for 45 years - for many of those years I attended and/or served every day of the week and on and on - - - - I do not know if I can even make a perfect act of Contrition - only God would know - so I will not reward heaven to anyone - especially not to one who has not had the benefits of God's sanctifying sacraments.
The very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of love of God obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.
How do you explain these things in light of your "doctrine of Providence"? How do you explain the fact that these doctrines have been taught by all theologians for over 1,000 years without ever being censured by the Church?
First off, it is the Church's Doctrine - not mine.
The Doctrine of Divine Providence teaches us that it (Divine Providence) leaves no room for chance or for fate.
That nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must he taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. 'Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives' is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, "and God intervenes everywhere." Pay special notice to those last three words........"God intervenes everywhere". One could meditate for 1000 years on those last three words alone and never fully comprehend it.
Now, one may perversely believe that God, in His Divine Providence, would ignore one who is sincere and about to die unbaptized, yet grant that person salvation in spite of His law. Seems many saints at one time or another believed that, but what earthly father would leave their child wanting something that was an absolute necessity when the father could effortlessly provide it?
Mat. 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.
8 For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?
10 Or if he shall ask a fish, will he reach him a serpent?
11 If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
Our Lord will NEVER deny baptism to one who sincerely desires it. *THAT* is how God provides, *THAT* is how God, like the loving Heavenly Father that He is, proves His infinite love, mercy and justice for us - by providing to us what we need.
-
None of what you have written negates the Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire. See my post above. You have not comprehended my analogy and I do foresee a greater comprehension in the near future. Only a temerious fool would at once confess filial devotion to Holy Mother Church while simultaneously rejecting one of her doctrines, Stubborn.
-
None of what you have written negates the Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire. See my post above. You have not comprehended my analogy and I do foresee a greater comprehension in the near future. Only a temerious fool would at once confess filial devotion to Holy Mother Church while simultaneously rejecting one of her doctrines, Stubborn.
I did see your post above. I replied to it.
This Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire you speak of does not exist - FYI.
Not sure why you display such an abhorrence for Our Lord in His Divine Providence but perhaps you can apply some time to it's study.
-
To deny Baptism of Desire or Blood results in a cause of influence upon humans to judge those who passed away without water Baptism. We are called not to judge the soul of others.
Limits God to “time” God is infinity, Infinite ; He is always in the IS.
You deny His attribute of being Omnipotent. What is impossible with men, with God all things are possible.
Negates His Mercy.
To deny a teaching of the Church also puts one outside the Church. Which is more tragic, than to be preparing for baptism only to be taken by God prior to the actual act of baptism.
-
To deny Baptism of Desire or Blood results in a cause of influence upon humans to judge those who passed away without water Baptism. We are called not to judge the soul of others.
See, this is interesting because I see it as those who support BOD are the ones doing the judging - they judge as innocent those who die unbaptized as being saved.
OTOH, Our Lord already said that whoever is not baptized will not see the kingdom of God - so I do not understand your thought process here.
Limits God to “time” God is infinity, Infinite ; He is always in the IS.
You deny His attribute of being Omnipotent. What is impossible with men, with God all things are possible.
Here is another point I do not understand. It is no more impossible for God to provide water and a minister than it is for Him to break His own law.........the difference is that when it comes right down to it, BOD forces God to break His own law for no other reason than to break His own law.
I do not deny that He is all Omnipotent, on the contrary..........He proves His Omnipotents for all to see and know when He provides the Sacrament of Baptism visibly - vs the unsubstantiated assumption of the reward of salvation to those who die and are positively not Sacramentally baptized.
Negates His Mercy.
To deny a teaching of the Church also puts one outside the Church. Which is more tragic, than to be preparing for baptism only to be taken by God prior to the actual act of baptism.
First, God is infinitely merciful, which is why He instituted all the helps (read: Sacraments) that we need to get to Heaven - in so doing, He provides these means of Salvation to everyone who desires them sincerely, without fail each and every time.
Second, 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 sceptics. This is how God provides for those in need. This is Divine Providence.
Third, there are no accidents to God, nor are there any circuмstances that God has not foreseen from all eternity. One who is Just and about to die unbaptized will get the Sacrament before he dies, to deny that truth exemplifies lack of faith in God. God is not bound by His own law, but we are - and we trust that He will provide what we need no matter what - were it any other way, God would be a monster.
IMO, BOD will some day need to be defined or condemned explicitly, until it is defined, there are currently plenty of infallible pronouncements which contradict BOD.
-
None of what you have written negates the Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire. See my post above. You have not comprehended my analogy and I do foresee a greater comprehension in the near future. Only a temerious fool would at once confess filial devotion to Holy Mother Church while simultaneously rejecting one of her doctrines, Stubborn.
I did see your post above. I replied to it.
This Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire you speak of does not exist - FYI.
Not sure why you display such an abhorrence for Our Lord in His Divine Providence but perhaps you can apply some time to it's study.
Your position amounts to a mortal sin against the faith in my opinion. Your concepts are confused and jumbled, you absolutely misunderstand the nature of Providence and see a contrived "contradiction" where none exists. Catholic doctrine clearly asserts that baptism of desire, or receiving the effects of the Sacrament outside of the actual sacrament in cases of necessity is certainly possible. No one knows who these people are that receive this form of baptism, but the possibility exists nevertheless.
There are many undefined doctrines of faith (though many theologians assert that this particular doctrine was defined by Trent). In this regard, you are acting like a Protestant, picking and choosing doctrines that fit your understanding while denying others. In your particular case, it is the doctrine of baptism of desire, in another case, it could be some other doctrine. You are picking and choosing what you will accept while rejecting others. Your claim to being a long-standing Catholic fails to impress me with such an attitude.
You haven't made one sound theological argument against this doctrine and you obviously haven't dealt with the authoritiy and tradition which teaches it. Closing your mind to this fact while pertinaciously clinging to your own opinion is simply dishonest.
-
None of what you have written negates the Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire. See my post above. You have not comprehended my analogy and I do foresee a greater comprehension in the near future. Only a temerious fool would at once confess filial devotion to Holy Mother Church while simultaneously rejecting one of her doctrines, Stubborn.
I did see your post above. I replied to it.
This Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire you speak of does not exist - FYI.
Not sure why you display such an abhorrence for Our Lord in His Divine Providence but perhaps you can apply some time to it's study.
Your position amounts to a mortal sin against the faith in my opinion. Your concepts are confused and jumbled, you absolutely misunderstand the nature of Providence and see a contrived "contradiction" where none exists. Catholic doctrine clearly asserts that baptism of desire, or receiving the effects of the Sacrament outside of the actual sacrament in cases of necessity is certainly possible. No one knows who these people are that receive this form of baptism, but the possibility exists nevertheless.
There are many undefined doctrines of faith (though many theologians assert that this particular doctrine was defined by Trent). In this regard, you are acting like a Protestant, picking and choosing doctrines that fit your understanding while denying others. In your particular case, it is the doctrine of baptism of desire, in another case, it could be some other doctrine. You are picking and choosing what you will accept while rejecting others. Your claim to being a long-standing Catholic fails to impress me with such an attitude.
You haven't made one sound theological argument against this doctrine and you obviously haven't dealt with the authoritiy and tradition which teaches it. Closing your mind to this fact while pertinaciously clinging to your own opinion is simply dishonest.
Well how about if you define exactly what BOD is for us - and is BOD a Sacrament?
-
Wrong! No one is judging that someone is in Heaven, except the Church when they canonize a Saint. The average lay person only has hoped their loved one was saved. People like you actually judge that if someone was not baptized by water they are in Hell, no matter how pious they were during life. They completely disregard the fact that these souls had every intention of doing the will of God, and receive baptism. That is a bad fruit of your belief system.
The Holy Ghost sanctifies souls. Since God is Omnipotent He can suspend time, and what seems like seconds to us, time in NOT in God’s infinity. If this water baptism is completely necessary as you say; God in His mercy can and will give His grace to whoever He chooses. That is in the Bible. Although no one can understand infinity, still, it is possible the Holy Ghost can baptize the soul of the dying by suspending time as we know it. We do not know all the workings of God and how He works His wonders. It is wrong for you to judge anyone or the workings of God. I am not saying that this is how God will administrate His mercy, but I am saying it is possible because all things are possible with God.
-
Wrong! No one is judging that someone is in Heaven, except the Church when they canonize a Saint. The average lay person only has hoped their loved one was saved. People like you actually judge that if someone was not baptized by water they are in Hell, no matter how pious they were during life.
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. - Jesus
How am I judging by repeating the words of Our Lord? How is it that you believe God incapable of supplying that which He commanded we need?
-
Well how about if you define exactly what BOD is for us - and is BOD a Sacrament?
I've got an even better idea. Why don't you study the matter for yourself and see what approved Catholic theologians and Fathers teach. And you need to drop this sad "Divine providence" argument. It is precisely because of Providence that this is even possible. And just as He doesn't "violate" His own law when one receives the effects of other Sacraments by a firm desire, along with other necessary prerequisites, neither does He "violate" His own law regarding this doctrine. His immutable Law is in fact that when the correct matter, form and intention are present, a Sacrament is infallibly confected, all else being equal. The fact that He can supply these effects acting outside of these Sacraments by His Divine power doesn't negate that law in the least.
-
Well how about if you define exactly what BOD is for us - and is BOD a Sacrament?
I've got an even better idea. Why don't you study the matter for yourself and see what approved Catholic theologians and Fathers teach.
You are stumped - that was too easy lol.......your own arrogance got in your way - try very hard to avoid being that way from now on.
And you need to drop this sad "Divine providence" argument. It is precisely because of Providence that this is even possible. And just as He doesn't "violate" His own law when one receives the effects of other Sacraments by a firm desire, along with other necessary prerequisites, neither does He "violate" His own law regarding this doctrine. His immutable Law is in fact that when the correct matter, form and intention are present, a Sacrament is infallibly confected, all else being equal. The fact that He can supply these effects acting outside of these Sacraments by His Divine power doesn't negate that law in the least.
Well you say it is a fact - but that is false because you cannot substantiate it and the best you can do is prove that it contradicts defined dogma and Divine Providence.
Come back after you graduate from high school.
-
Wrong! No one is judging that someone is in Heaven, except the Church when they canonize a Saint. The average lay person only has hoped their loved one was saved. People like you actually judge that if someone was not baptized by water they are in Hell, no matter how pious they were during life.
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. - Jesus
How am I judging by repeating the words of Our Lord? How is it that you believe God incapable of supplying that which He commanded we need?
Your the one who believe God is incapable, I just told you one way He can supply us with what we need. Why do you suppose God says, murder calls down God's vengeance; maybe because it interupts God's plan. Souls were murdered before water baptism could be administered. Yet, God supplied the Saints with the necessary Sanctifying grace, which is what Baptism is. Not a Sacrament in that sense, but the grace necessary to save their soul.
Your judging because you believe and even claim somone is in Hell, when only God knows that!
Come back Stubborn when you find the Truth.
-
The question is actually rather easily solved. Since Catholic theologians unanimously teach Baptism of Blood or Desire either as theologically certain, de fide or common consent, we are bound as Catholics to adhere to this doctrine.
If you don´t, then you deny the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This would be certainly heretical.
Everything else will be pretty much beyond us, since we are far from being theologians.
-
Wrong! No one is judging that someone is in Heaven, except the Church when they canonize a Saint. The average lay person only has hoped their loved one was saved. People like you actually judge that if someone was not baptized by water they are in Hell, no matter how pious they were during life.
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. - Jesus
How am I judging by repeating the words of Our Lord? How is it that you believe God incapable of supplying that which He commanded we need?
Your the one who believe God is incapable, I just told you one way He can supply us with what we need. Why do you suppose God says, murder calls down God's vengeance; maybe because it interupts God's plan. Souls were murdered before water baptism could be administered. Yet, God supplied the Saints with the necessary Sanctifying grace, which is what Baptism is. Not a Sacrament in that sense, but the grace necessary to save their soul.
Come back Stubborn when you find the Truth.
You believe it not only impossible, you also believe it would be unheard of for God to supply the Sacrament - - -You believe that He would much rather NOT supply the Sacrament - and this you claim is the doctrine of BOD? Where on earth do people come up with this stuff?
I have the truth, in your eagerness to reward the unbaptized heaven against God's command, you do not see the truth.
Try very hard to stop doing that from now on!
-
The question is actually rather easily solved. Since Catholic theologians unanimously teach Baptism of Blood or Desire either as theologically certain, de fide or common consent, we are bound as Catholics to adhere to this doctrine.
If you don´t, then you deny the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This would be certainly heretical.
Everything else will be pretty much beyond us, since we are far from being theologians.
Here is St. Augustine - one of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - is this what you are trying to say, or doesn't this count?
From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.
St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.
-
I believe as the Church teaches, that He will supply Sanctifying grace to whom He will. To believe otherwise is heresy.
The Church teaches that Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation.
Why do you limit God? He is boundless.
You judge, and you will be judge according to the way you judge. That too, is in the Bible.
-
I believe as the Church teaches, that He will supply Sanctifying grace to whom He will. To believe otherwise is heresy.
The Church teaches that Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation.
Why do you limit God? He is boundless.
You judge, and you will be judge according to the way you judge. That too, is in the Bible.
I am repeating the words of Our Lord - I am not judging - get that through your head. I am not limiting God - you are when you take Him out of the whole equation and force Him to grant salvation to one unbaptized - understand?
Of course the Church teaches that Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation - that is not the issue.
-
Have a good day, sir, I hope for you all the best.
-
Here is St. Augustine - one of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - is this what you are trying to say, or doesn't this count?
No, since this is no theological treatise in the strict sense, nor does he make clear if this is the common teaching, de fide etc, nor was there a censuring procedure of the Holy See as we know it from later ages (not saying that his writings would have to be censured).
If we claim St. Augustine as an adversary of BOD, to which he actually makes no reference, morally speaking we still have a unanimous agreement among theologians.
Should the Church have failed in the last 500 and more years to condemn all these major theologians, then she could lead men into error and sin. This is obviously an absurd and condemned proposition.
To hold St. Augustine above the teaching authority of the Holy See and Universal Church is also condemned.
-
UNbaptized is not the issure here for there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, get that through your head.
-
Third, there are no accidents to God, nor are there any circuмstances that God has not foreseen from all eternity. One who is Just and about to die unbaptized will get the Sacrament before he dies, to deny that truth exemplifies lack of faith in God. God is not bound by His own law, but we are - and we trust that He will provide what we need no matter what
God in all of His attributes is infinitely perfect. A perfection which is beyond human comprehension. Be it in His goodness, His mercy, or in His justice. What He has revealed through His Son is the same. One can not doubt this. Thus to believe that anything could happen that would require Him to circuмvent His revealed precepts would mean that they were less than perfection in all ways, and as well, that events could happen that were against His Divine Will.
God wills that all men would be saved, and all men will be saved, who would be saved. All, who God has known from all eternity would respond to the grace imparted, through His boundless mercy, that they might find salvation.
The Tradition of the Church is full of many accounts of God and His saints raising children and adults from the dead who were then Baptized, died and went to their reward. All such things serve as wonders which both Glorify God and His perfection.
-
Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”” (Denz. 796)
-
UNbaptized is not the issure here for there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, get that through your head.
For whatever it is worth-------in all honesty and sincerity, I try to believe that there is such a thing as a Baptism of Desire - no joke! - and I am not being facetious in the least.
I know there have been plenty of "saints and theologians" - deemed to be the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - which have taught that the Desire to be Baptized will allow one into eternal life. I know this, I believe this is true, I completely understand this - yet published and absolutely clear infallible declarations that contradict this abound so there is really no need to post all of them again for the umpteenth time.
In the interest of having a "personal insult" free debate/discussion, can we at least agree that there is no question that explicit contradictions exist between the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and infallible Papal/Council declarations?
For my part, the whole EENS / BOD / BOB fascinates me and I love discussing / debating it - but prefer to do so against my own biased opinion civilly. (<- is that a word? lol) IOW, in my own private studies regarding BOD/BOB, I am always *for* BOD/BOB, not against them. I guess in my own mind, I try to play the "devil's advocate" - - - - but I continue to come up with the same answer, namely, BOD/BOB needs to be either infallibly explicitly condemned as heretical or infallibly explicitly defined as dogma. Until that happens, there is a contradiction.
As it stands today, IMO - or perhaps better stated - in my *private* interpretations, BOD / BOB fails the test of dogma or even doctrine for many reasons - primarily because BOD / BOD do not even have boundaries...............A priest from SSPX told us from the pulpit that one who was unconscience in a coma, *in a hospital* was saved via BOD. I must note that as that priest taught this, the other priest seated in the Sanctuary visibly put his head in hand and shook his head as if to say "I cannot believe he just said that" - - - - - strictly my opinion mind you - but for all intents and purposes, it was overtly obvious.
-
The faith teaches that BOD is not a Sacrament - so I am submitting something infallible here that I posted elsewhere in reply to the belief that an unbaptized priest was rewarded salvation via BOD...........
To phrase Trent's Canon in the affirmative, read what is bolded in red.
"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" (Decree on the Sacraments).
One must FIRST understand what is written FIRST......... Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what the FIRST part of the canon states ...........but *that* is not enough because one must not only receive the Sacrament, per the second part of the canon, one must also desire to receive the Sacrament worthily, with the proper disposition and with the proper intent. THIS is what the Church has always taught. The Church used to teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - somehow, that makes zero sense if you believe in a typical opinion of what BOD is. BTW, BOD is only an opinion with 100s of different definitions - none of which have been defined by the Magisterium infallibly.
To read the canons of Trent where the word "desire" appears in any other light renders the canon absolutely meaningless.
How anyone can take one mistranslated word "desire", and judge that salvation is granted based on this one word, then name that entirely misinterpreted canon a "Baptism of Desire" while completely disregarding all other church teachings to the contrary is beyond me.
One truth that BOD folks cannot brush away is the fact that per Trent, as is bolded in the canon above, the Sacraments are declared "necessary unto Salvation". BOD is no Sacrament. Now here is where they decide that good intentions only pave the road to hell for everyone - except the Catechumen.
FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.
These sponsors state their "desire" explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.
THIS is the "desire" Trent was speaking of - not some vague implicit intention or wrong belief that puts even unbaptized priests in heaven.
-
This is what I mean by being confused.
All individuals believe that what they believe is correct even if it is a pinch of this or that and of course don't necessarily go on about it but espouse the accepted truth of their congregation faithfully.
Many intelleigentisia love to argue the details of who said what and where and in what context.
Almost all the theologians mentioned bove to be used for reference and inspiration are on the "hit list", for the major heresy of Salvation outside the Church, most specifically salvation is possible for jews and muslims of course but also pagans and savages (some savages are likely NOT to be in our species so it doesn't matter.)
Below is a list of theologians who denied the Salvation Dogma as indentified by Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was also a salvation heretic.
.....
Scheeben
Billot
Tanquerey
Garrigou-LaGrange
......
I am not fit to argue but if they said so, they so, and it seems that people are picking and choosing based on other areas of apparent wisdom in their writings.
When in doubt, we shoud live by the strictest position, the default position because we are unable at times to know God's will. I hope that is not a heresy somewhere.
I am praying very hard and believe God will give me the Grace that I need and the direction to take.
-
(some savages are likely NOT to be in our species so it doesn't matter.)
I find this statement somewhat perplexing.
How do you define a "savage"?
Would positing that "savages" are "likely NOT to be in our species" constitute a denial of the unicity of the human race?
It is of divine faith that Adam and Eve are the First Parents of the entire human race. To posit the existence of "sub-human" creatures that are not quite brutes but are merely human in accidental appearance would be tantamount to declaring (at least implicitly) that there exists another cosmological economy (in the etymological sense of the word) that is parallel to the present economy ordained by Divine Providence (angelic spirits -> human persons -> brute creatures -> vegetative creatures -> inanimate matter).
I am not saying that this is what you meant to imply, but oftentimes others who make such statements do give the impression that this is the conclusion that is to be deduced from such discredited ethnological theories.
The theory of the existence of "Pre-Adamites" or "Co-Adamites," has been censured as heretical by some theologians: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12370a.htm
-
This is what I mean by being confused.
All individuals believe that what they believe is correct even if it is a pinch of this or that and of course don't necessarily go on about it but espouse the accepted truth of their congregation faithfully.
Many intelleigentisia love to argue the details of who said what and where and in what context.
Almost all the theologians mentioned bove to be used for reference and inspiration are on the "hit list", for the major heresy of Salvation outside the Church, most specifically salvation is possible for jews and muslims of course but also pagans and savages (some savages are likely NOT to be in our species so it doesn't matter.)
Below is a list of theologians who denied the Salvation Dogma as indentified by Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was also a salvation heretic.
.....
Scheeben
Billot
Tanquerey
Garrigou-LaGrange
......
I am not fit to argue but if they said so, they so, and it seems that people are picking and choosing based on other areas of apparent wisdom in their writings.
When in doubt, we shoud live by the strictest position, the default position because we are unable at times to know God's will. I hope that is not a heresy somewhere.
I am praying very hard and believe God will give me the Grace that I need and the direction to take.
Take a step back, and catch your breath. Study the New Testament, and learn the Divine dogmas of the Church which you must believe. They are Divine law, that is to say, that they are the word and will of Christ. There is no higher authority. Do not be confused by theological opinions. The Holy Religion speaks very clearly in its dogmatic pronouncements. Take them exactly as expressed with the meaning imparted by the words which are used to express them.
Theological opinions cannot depart, embellish or qualify, such pronouncements. They can say more about them, however they cannot go beyond or outside of the defined and obvious meaning of these infallible utterances.
Once you know the dogmas, you will be able to discern those speculations which are in accord with them and those which conflict with them.
Christ has spoken clearly in these teachings so that we will not need to be confused.
For instance,
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Clear enough, that is all that one needs to know. What happens to the native, or the Protestant across the road is not our concern. We were not told these things by the Church. They are not relevant to our salvation . All we need to know is that, without any doubt, there is no salvation outside of the ark, and so we must act accordingly to enter the Church and remain faithfully within Her until death.
JMJ
-
THE MATTER OF "BAPTISM OF DESIRE" (http://fatherwathen.com/125.html) - Fr. James Wathen
.............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: (a) make a perfect act of contrition at the time of their death; and/or:
(b) 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 (a) several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. (b) two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it;
(c) there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire;"
(d) 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.
(e) there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
(f) 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 desisre," 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,
(a) a person must truly and firmly believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the teaching of His Gospel,
(b) he must enter the Church by receiving Baptism, and
(c) having entered the Church, he must keep the Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church,
d) and attain a certain degree of the love of God., and persevere in this state till the end of his life. ..........
-
Such mistakes! . . .
-
Such mistakes! . . .
Oh no,no,nono,no! You may believe whatsoever you wish, as long as you do not attemt to depart from the defined and Divine dogmas. Any interpretation of such doctrines which does not hold to the same meaning and sentence as clearly expressed by the Church is solemnly condemned.
Actually one does not interpret dogma, one has but one course, and that is submission and acceptance.
-
THE MATTER OF "BAPTISM OF DESIRE" (http://fatherwathen.com/125.html) - Fr. James Wathen
.............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: (a) make a perfect act of contrition at the time of their death; and/or:
(b) 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 (a) several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. (b) two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it;
(c) there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire;"
(d) 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.
(e) there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
(f) 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 desisre," 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,
(a) a person must truly and firmly believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the teaching of His Gospel,
(b) he must enter the Church by receiving Baptism, and
(c) having entered the Church, he must keep the Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church,
d) and attain a certain degree of the love of God., and persevere in this state till the end of his life. ..........
Absolutely! :applause:
-
The Church solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus) and we read:
"...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
So, Stubborn and J.Paul, do you claim that all who "call into doubt" that which Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence defined have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith"??
-
The Church solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus) and we read:
"...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
So, Stubborn and J.Paul, do you claim that all who "call into doubt" that which Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence defined have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith"??
Are you saying they don't?
-
You can answer it first, LordPhan. I will surely let you know later what I think.
-
The Church solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus) and we read:
"...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
So, Stubborn and J.Paul, do you claim that all who "call into doubt" that which Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence defined have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith"??
Well now, a Pontiff invoking the full authority of Christ has told the Church and all of mankind this truth which applies to the belief in all of the Church's dogmatic definitions. Lord Phan and myself provide you with the desired bullseye, and you can now launch your arrow. We await.
-
Let me know if I have I have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith" by professing the following...
I, Nonno, personally, believe and religiously profess that 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
-
It is of divine faith that Adam and Eve are the First Parents of the entire human race.
I should have cited an authority for this.
Attached is the pertinent article of Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's textbook The Trinity and God the Creator: A Commentary on St. Thomas' Theological Summa, Ia, q. 27-119, ch. xliii. (trans. Rev. Fr. Frederic C. Eckhoff; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1952).
-
Let me know if I have I have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith" by professing the following...
I, Nonno, personally, believe and religiously profess that 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
Ah, the quoting of the infallible saints. A saint's opinion or personal interpretation of the defined doctrines of the church are just that, and can be erroneous, and have been on many occasions. The Church however does not err.
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.
-
Ah, the quoting of the infallible saints. A saint's opinion or personal interpretation of the defined doctrines of the church are just that, and can be erroneous, and have been on many occasions. The Church however does not err.
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.
Do you think that BOD is erroneous or heretical? I highly doubt that a Saint can be a heretic.
You are right, the Church does not err - that is why she could not have taught BOD/BOB erroneously.
-
J. Paul, I asked you: Do you think my own profession (I profess that) calls into doubt the previous solemn teaching of the Church? Yes, or No?
-
Should traditional Catholics believe in Baptism of Desire/Blood?
-
Should traditional Catholics believe in Baptism of Desire/Blood?
Opinion is split on this question. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in support of it in "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
I recommend reading "Open Letter" http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm
-
The Church solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus) and we read:
"...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
So, Stubborn and J.Paul, do you claim that all who "call into doubt" that which Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence defined have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith"??
This is a loaded question because to miss heaven even by a little bit is to miss it completely.
The condemnation of Pope Eugene IV could easily be understood that whoever denies or doubts the dogma of the Assumption willfully places themselves outside of the Church - so it is best to take literally the condemnation and simply believe the Dogma rather than to tempt fate - IMO.
-
So, Stubborn, do the words of my profession go contrary to the solemn teaching of the Church?
-
Let me know if I have I have "fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith" by professing the following...
I, Nonno, personally, believe and religiously profess that 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
You will need to reference another council because Trent never taught BOD - not ever. Trent taught the necessity of natural water for the Sacrament.
In fact, in the history of Holy Mother the Church, no council has ever defined BOD.
-
Stubborn, the Church "defines" something to tell us HOW we should believe a doctrine of the Church. The Church does not need to define something unless She feels an extraordinary necessity, most often when a doctrine is attacked or doubted.
-
Ah, the quoting of the infallible saints. A saint's opinion or personal interpretation of the defined doctrines of the church are just that, and can be erroneous, and have been on many occasions. The Church however does not err.
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.
Do you think that BOD is erroneous or heretical? I highly doubt that a Saint can be a heretic.
You are right, the Church does not err - that is why she could not have taught BOD/BOB erroneously.
Look to St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the Immaculate Conception as being proof that saints are fallible - yet still are saints.
How many centuries passed before that dogma was defined?
This is how these things often work..........the learned can debate certain issues for many centuries - or perhaps until all possible arguments have been exhausted. Then the Pope steps in to settle the issue infallibly for all time.
IMO, we are living the "BOD argument period" and at some point, the pope will either define it infallibly or explicitly condemn it. Until then, no sense tempting fate - God would not make a law that was impossible for us to follow.
-
Stubborn, the Church "defines" something to tell us HOW we should believe a doctrine of the Church. The Church does not need to define something unless She feels an extraordinary necessity, most often when a doctrine is attacked or doubted.
I agree.
Trent was defending the faith against the protestant revolt. The Sacraments were under attack.
As I posted earlier, Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation.
"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" (Decree on the Sacraments).
I won't repost the rest of my reply from page 7 of this thread, but suffice to say that nowhere does Trent declare that the Sacrament is not necessary - - and we all know that BOD is not a Sacrament.
-
So, Stubborn, do the words of my profession go contrary to the solemn teaching of the Church?
IMO, yes, they do......IMO.
Here's a question for you.
I can see where official infallibly defined dogma contradicts teachings from saints etc. as regards BOD.
Do you agree?
-
Ah, the quoting of the infallible saints. A saint's opinion or personal interpretation of the defined doctrines of the church are just that, and can be erroneous, and have been on many occasions. The Church however does not err.
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.
Do you think that BOD is erroneous or heretical? I highly doubt that a Saint can be a heretic.
You are right, the Church does not err - that is why she could not have taught BOD/BOB erroneously.
Look to St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the Immaculate Conception as being proof that saints are fallible - yet still are saints.
How many centuries passed before that dogma was defined?
This is how these things often work..........the learned can debate certain issues for many centuries - or perhaps until all possible arguments have been exhausted. Then the Pope steps in to settle the issue infallibly for all time.
IMO, we are living the "BOD argument period" and at some point, the pope will either define it infallibly or explicitly condemn it. Until then, no sense tempting fate - God would not make a law that was impossible for us to follow.
You are correct in that sometimes many centuries go by where the Church allows many theological explorations and opinions in such matters, which are brought to a close when a dogmatic definition is issued< and we are told how we must understand the matter, however the Church can never give forth with a proclamation which contradicts or undermines its defined doctine.
IMO, it will likely be a very long time before we see a Pope ,once again, defend the defined doctrine of exclusive salvation and its attendant precepts.
JMJ
-
Stubborn, the Church "defines" something to tell us HOW we should believe a doctrine of the Church. The Church does not need to define something unless She feels an extraordinary necessity, most often when a doctrine is attacked or doubted.
I agree.
Trent was defending the faith against the protestant revolt. The Sacraments were under attack.
As I posted earlier, Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation.
"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" (Decree on the Sacraments).
I won't repost the rest of my reply from page 7 of this thread, but suffice to say that nowhere does Trent declare that the Sacrament is not necessary - - and we all know that BOD is not a Sacrament.
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." [section on baptism]
Are you saying that the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied what the Council itself just solemnly taught?!
It is plainly clear that the Catechism is merely explaining what the Council taught, where it says, "...the desire [of Baptism], men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification..."
Don't forget...."let him be anathema", to those denying this!
-
Catechisms are fallible and "grace and righteousness" is not salvation.
-
Catechisms are fallible and "grace and righteousness" is not salvation.
The Catechism of Trent is correct, and Baptism of Desire has always been believed.
Their is one element that everyone here in this argument you're having are missing. The State of Neccessity. There are normal circuмstances and under those X applies. Under abnormal conditions Y applies.
For example, A Priest is the only one who may touch the eucharist. But under the realm of neccesity a Deacon may do so. If it is not neccesary then he may not.
Baptism of Desire is for someones deathbed if I'm not mistaken, wherefore they have no access to Baptism they cannot be denied. This gets really complex and out of my realm, but their are many things that can be done under neccessity that can't be done under normal circuмstances. The Normal ways are guarenteed and the abnormal ones are not but are better then no chance at all.
Another example would be confession, whereby there is the normal way of confession to a Priest but under the circuмstance that one has no Priest to confess to he makes an act of perfect contrition and may achieve salvation, in this way Baptism of Desire would be similar.
Does this make sense?
-
"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" (Decree on the Sacraments).
It is right here, in the very definition you have cited.
-
Catechisms are fallible and "grace and righteousness" is not salvation.
Yes, stubbornness is a characteristic of heretics. It's in the will.
The Council said "salvation" and the desire of the sacrament. Stubborn, it says that. Stubborn, look. Stubborn?
Granted a catechism isn't protected by infallibility at the moment of promulgation, it is IMPOSSIBLE that nobody in the whole church (and for generations) would have completely failed to notice that it denied what was solemnly taught by St. Pius V in that council. Yes, impossible, because besides papal infallibility, there is the infallibility of the Church. You deny the infallibility of the Church when you claim the whole world for several generations didn't notice. It has never happened in the Church with any other circuмstance. All heresies have always been noticed immediately by a generation living with it.
Once you invent the notion that generations can go by without noticing a public heresy, you just start the ball rolling for other Catholics to defend the right to abortion because the Church never solemnly defined murder.
-
Catechisms are fallible and "grace and righteousness" is not salvation.
The Catechism of Trent is correct, and Baptism of Desire has always been believed.
Their is one element that everyone here in this argument you're having are missing. The State of Neccessity. There are normal circuмstances and under those X applies. Under abnormal conditions Y applies.
For example, A Priest is the only one who may touch the eucharist. But under the realm of neccesity a Deacon may do so. If it is not neccesary then he may not.
Baptism of Desire is for someones deathbed if I'm not mistaken, wherefore they have no access to Baptism they cannot be denied. This gets really complex and out of my realm, but their are many things that can be done under neccessity that can't be done under normal circuмstances. The Normal ways are guarenteed and the abnormal ones are not but are better then no chance at all.
Another example would be confession, whereby there is the normal way of confession to a Priest but under the circuмstance that one has no Priest to confess to he makes an act of perfect contrition and may achieve salvation, in this way Baptism of Desire would be similar.
Does this make sense?
Absolutely it makes sense - provided we allow human reasoning to prevail over the Providence of God.
To date, nobody has been able to provide even one circuмstance that was unforeseen by God from all eternity. Or any circuмstance or "necessity" that was impossible for God to provide the Sacrament.
Humans are all so willing to support salvation via desire out of necessity, based on the "unforeseen accident" or some other such "sudden death" scenario because that reasoning is based on our own abilities without regard to God's ability and promise to provide what is asked of Him.
I am saying there is no Scripture or infallible declarations to back up BOD - only the contrary. As such, IMO, if I were to die unbaptized, I would not expect to make it to heaven no matter how much I thought I deserved in based on my own desire.
-
So, Stubborn, do the words of my profession go contrary to the solemn teaching of the Church?
IMO, yes, they do......IMO.
Here's a question for you.
I can see where official infallibly defined dogma contradicts teachings from saints etc. as regards BOD.
Do you agree?
NONNO, you gonna answer? ?
-
Catechisms are fallible and "grace and righteousness" is not salvation.
Yes, stubbornness is a characteristic of heretics. It's in the will.
The Council said "salvation" and the desire of the sacrament. Stubborn, it says that. Stubborn, look. Stubborn?
Granted a catechism isn't protected by infallibility at the moment of promulgation, it is IMPOSSIBLE that nobody in the whole church (and for generations) would have completely failed to notice that it denied what was solemnly taught by St. Pius V in that council. Yes, impossible, because besides papal infallibility, there is the infallibility of the Church. You deny the infallibility of the Church when you claim the whole world for several generations didn't notice. It has never happened in the Church with any other circuмstance. All heresies have always been noticed immediately by a generation living with it.
Once you invent the notion that generations can go by without noticing a public heresy, you just start the ball rolling for other Catholics to defend the right to abortion because the Church never solemnly defined murder.
I will make one more attempt...................
The faith teaches that BOD is not a Sacrament - so I am submitting something infallible here that I posted elsewhere in reply to the belief that an unbaptized priest was rewarded salvation via BOD...........
To phrase Trent's Canon in the affirmative, read what is bolded in red.
"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" (Decree on the Sacraments).
One must FIRST understand what is written FIRST......... Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what the FIRST part of the canon states ...........but *that* is not enough because one must not only receive the Sacrament, per the second part of the canon, one must also desire to receive the Sacrament worthily, with the proper disposition and with the proper intent. THIS is what the Church has always taught. The Church used to teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - somehow, that makes zero sense if you believe in a typical opinion of what BOD is. BTW, BOD is only an opinion with 100s of different definitions - none of which have been defined by the Magisterium infallibly.
To read the canons of Trent where the word "desire" appears in any other light renders the canon absolutely meaningless.
How anyone can take one mistranslated word "desire", and judge that salvation is granted based on this one word, then name that entirely misinterpreted canon a "Baptism of Desire" while completely disregarding all other church teachings to the contrary is beyond me.
One truth that BOD folks cannot brush away is the fact that per Trent, as is bolded in the canon above, the Sacraments are declared "necessary unto Salvation". BOD is no Sacrament. Now here is where they decide that good intentions only pave the road to hell for everyone - except the Catechumen.
FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.
These sponsors state their "desire" explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.
THIS is the "desire" Trent was speaking of - not some vague implicit intention or wrong belief that puts even unbaptized priests in heaven.
-
Humans are all so willing to support salvation via desire out of necessity, based on the "unforeseen accident" or some other such "sudden death" scenario because that reasoning is based on our own abilities without regard to God's ability and promise to provide what is asked of Him.
This is important in that there is nothing unforseen or sudden in God's infinte omniscience. God has foreknown every man who will be saved and who will be lost. He need not employ "emergency" procedures to make this happen. He could not be perfect in all of His attributes if that were so.
-
Stubborn,
To read the canons of Trent where the word "desire" appears in any other light renders the canon absolutely meaningless.
Clearly this cannot happen, the Church cannot contradict itself.
-
So, Stubborn, do the words of my profession go contrary to the solemn teaching of the Church?
IMO, yes, they do......IMO.
Here's a question for you.
I can see where official infallibly defined dogma contradicts teachings from saints etc. as regards BOD.
Do you agree?
NONNO, you gonna answer? ?
I believe my responses have contained the answer to your question - I know of no teaching of a Saint that contradicted solemn teaching on baptism of desire. My profession that I printed some messages back was taken right from St. Alphonsus, in a moral theology book that the clergy has used for generations in seminaries. The Church has approved of it.
You Feeneyite heretics need to stop pulling punches and avoiding the obvious. You need to come right out and proclaim confidently (however embarrassing it really is):
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied the Church's solemnly defined dogma and St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did too, and nobody in the Church's hierarchy noticed for hundreds of years."
Why be afraid to explicitly profess what you really believe? Why are you embarrassed to profess that?
-
I wonder how many people ACTUALLY READ the article I posted....
I don't believe Nonno did, because he would have seen that there WERE saints that objected to the "teaching" and also reversed their opinion of one in favor to one in rejection.
Clearly if you read the article, you will see that there IS NOT a consensus on it, and I challenge anyone to write the author of the article and prove this case, and let us know what rebuttals you get.
-
I glanced at it. But it still doesn't address this quote I constructed...
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied the Church's solemnly defined dogma and St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did too, and nobody in the Church's hierarchy noticed for hundreds of years."
This statement is either true, or it is not.
I say it is not. I say the Roman Catechism and St. Alphonsus' moral theology text book are in complete conformity with what the Council of Trent solemnly taught, and to say otherwise undermines the infallibility of the Church.
C'mon Feeneyites, make your professions on this one way or the other.
-
18. We, therefore, Venerable Brethren, desirous of fulfilling this most important obligation of Our Teaching Office, and likewise wishing to introduce uniformity everywhere in so weighty a matter, do by Our Supreme Authority enact the following regulations and strictly command that they be observed and carried out in all dioceses of the world.
19. I. On every Sunday and holy day, with no exception, throughout the year, all parish priests and in general all those having the care of souls, shall instruct the boys and girls, for the space of an hour from the text of the Catechism on those things they must believe and do in order to attain salvation.
20. II. At certain times throughout the year, they shall prepare boys and girls to receive properly the Sacraments of Penance and Confirmation, by a continued instruction over a period of days.
21. III. With a very special zeal, on every day in Lent and, if necessary, on the days following Easter, they shall instruct with the use of apt illustrations and exhortations the youth of both sexes to receive their first Communion in a holy manner.
22. IV. In each and every parish the society known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is to be canonically established. Through this Confraternity, the pastors, especially in places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers in the teaching of the Catechism, who will take up the work of imparting knowledge both from a zeal for the glory of God and in order to gain the numerous Indulgences granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs.
23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.
24. VI. Since it is a fact that in these days adults need instruction no less than the young, all pastors and those having the care of souls shall explain the Catechism to the people in a plain and simple style adapted to the intelligence of their hearers. This shall be carried out on all holy days of obligation, at such time as is most convenient for the people, but not during the same hour when the children are instructed, and this instruction must be in addition to the usual homily on the Gospel which is delivered at the parochial Mass on Sundays and holy days. The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.
25. Venerable Brethren, We decree and command this by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority. It now rests with you to put it into prompt and complete execution in your respective dioceses, and by the power of your authority to see to it that these prescriptions of Ours be not neglected or, what amounts to the same thing, that they be not carried out carelessly or superficially. That this may be avoided, you must exhort and urge your pastors not to impart these instructions without having first prepared themselves in the work. Then they will not merely speak words of human wisdom, but "in simplicity and godly sincerity,"[24] imitating the example of Jesus Christ, Who, though He revealed "things hidden since the foundation of the world,"[25] yet spoke "all . . . things to the crowds in parables, and without parables . . . did not speak to them."[26] We know that the Apostles, who were taught by the Lord, did the same; for of them Pope Saint Gregory wrote: "They took supreme care to preach to the uninstructed simple truths easy to understand, not things deep and difficult."[27] In matters of religion, the majority of men in our times must be considered uninstructed.
-
I glanced at it. But it still doesn't address this quote I constructed...
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied the Church's solemnly defined dogma and St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did too, and nobody in the Church's hierarchy noticed for hundreds of years."
This statement is either true, or it is not.
I say it is not. I say the Roman Catechism and St. Alphonsus' moral theology text book are in complete conformity with what the Council of Trent solemnly taught, and to say otherwise undermines the infallibility of the Church.
C'mon Feeneyites, make your professions on this one way or the other.
This characterization is a red herring.
-
I wonder how many people ACTUALLY READ the article I posted....
I don't believe Nonno did, because he would have seen that there WERE saints that objected to the "teaching" and also reversed their opinion of one in favor to one in rejection.
Clearly if you read the article, you will see that there IS NOT a consensus on it, and I challenge anyone to write the author of the article and prove this case, and let us know what rebuttals you get.
My apologies, I just now read it - what a great, great article and thank you for posting it!
IMO, even after all this time it amazes me how folks still attempt to defend something that not only has no actual definition, it has ton's of different definitions! As though one can have faith that Our Loving Almighty Father never left us the wide road that not only does not lead to perdition, it's now a clear path to salvation! Madness!
As was noted in your article via the comment by Donald E. Flood: While the term “Baptism of Desire” has been around for some time, a precise consistent and specific definition for “Baptism of Desire” cannot be said to exist. Many are defenders of something labeled “Baptism of Desire” Good luck finding two who mean the same thing when these are seriously examined.
I guess that if I had to sum it up, I would say that folks completely and totally abandon, forsake and ignore the fact that God is involved in the whole process while completely relying on mans own assumed sincerity to reward salvation! Again - madness!
It is as though Our Blessed Lord Himself was baptized to show how unimportant the whole thing really is. As though Our Lord made water the most abundant thing on earth for no reason whatsoever. As though St. John the Baptists is hailed as "the Baptist" instead of "the Martyr" for no reason!
Folks love to quote Catechisms - Trent's is always popular - yet for some reason, folks seem to miss the latest re-formulated Catechism which is at least honest in stating EENS has been re-formulated: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
It then goes on to not only reward salvation to those who are ignorant, but also condemns those who know better: This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church.............................The crazy thing is, is that the very same people who believe what Our Blessed Lord commanded and Counsels infallibly declared - choose to condemn only those who echo what Our Blessed Lord commanded and Counsels infallibly declared! Again - Madness!
-
I glanced at it. But it still doesn't address this quote I constructed...
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied the Church's solemnly defined dogma and St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did too, and nobody in the Church's hierarchy noticed for hundreds of years."
This statement is either true, or it is not.
I say it is not. I say the Roman Catechism and St. Alphonsus' moral theology text book are in complete conformity with what the Council of Trent solemnly taught, and to say otherwise undermines the infallibility of the Church.
C'mon Feeneyites, make your professions on this one way or the other.
FYI, as I posted in another thread, St. Alphonsus (one of my most beloved patron saints ever) contradicted himself.
You, my friend, play with fire by making a frivolous vow - IMO.
Per Pope Gregory XVI, St. Alphonsus‘ teachings on morals in his book Moral Theology have, IMO, been declared error free, BUT, the same is in no way able to be said as regards his teachings on the faith - so your tag line is misleading in that regard.
Because a fallible organ, Pope Gregory XVI, declared the moral teachings in Alphonsus‘ book Moral Theology to be error free, these teachings are likewise fallible and hence can contain error because they have not been infallibly approved by an act of the Roman Pontiff.
Additionally, St. Alphonsus contradicts himself in his Preaching of God‟s Word by teaching that the Sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for all: It should be known that baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the Sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter heaven.
Salvation via BOD is a nice sentiment that not only cannot ever be proven, it can only be proven as error against infallibly defined dogma.
-
The statement I submitted is either true, or it isn't, and not surprising that you two Feeneyite heretics won't touch it.
If anyone today professes the very same things, you are quick to say they believe against solemn Church teaching. Yet, contradictorily, won't touch the sources that taught that belief in the first place. Oh the evasion of heretics!
It matters not whether those sources, in themselves, were protected by infallibility when the author composed them. What matters is that Holy Mother Church who is protected by the Holy Ghost took them to Her own to present to the world of Catholics and clergy. Then it becomes part of the ordinary magisterium.
Luther himself was not infallible, yet it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to have not noticed and failed to condemn his errors against solemn Church teaching. Impossible; never happened, never can happen. Yet, supposedly these two sources I mention above taught against solemn teaching, and for at least two whole world's of mankind, born and dead after 200 years, and some have the audacity to effectively declare the Church never noticed those explicitly approved sources were really against solemn Church teaching.
-
The statement I submitted is either true, or it isn't, and not surprising that you two Feeneyite heretics won't touch it.
It is a true travesty. Other than that, it bespeaks of ignorance. I do not intend to offend, but the facts are undeniable...........particularly if you were an Apostle that Christ commanded.
If anyone today professes the very same things, you are quick to say they believe against solemn Church teaching. Yet, contradictorily, won't touch the sources that taught that belief in the first place. Oh the evasion of heretics!
WHAT solemn Church teaching? - Are you speaking about the CCC's that needed to Re-formulate Dogma?
FWIW and FYI, one cannot be accused of heresy when one echoes infallibly defined dogma.............unlike BOD!
-
WHAT solemn Church teaching? - Are you speaking about the CCC's that needed to Re-formulate Dogma?
The Church law falls under negative infallibility, at least. But I guess it will also be impossible to proof this, since every theological manual is (then necessarily) wrong.
And if everything the Church does is wrong, how can I know she was not wrong in the very beginning about the necessity of Baptism?
-
WHAT solemn Church teaching? - Are you speaking about the CCC's that needed to Re-formulate Dogma?
The Church law falls under negative infallibility, at least. But I guess it will also be impossible to proof this, since every theological manual is (then necessarily) wrong.
And if everything the Church does is wrong, how can I know she was not wrong in the very beginning about the necessity of Baptism?
As was noted in the OP's link, “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? If you prefer, we will put it this way: If, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You would then be satisfied to desire glory, as though that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!” (Oration on Divine Light, XL, #23)
-
WHAT solemn Church teaching? - Are you speaking about the CCC's that needed to Re-formulate Dogma?
The Church law falls under negative infallibility, at least. But I guess it will also be impossible to proof this, since every theological manual is (then necessarily) wrong.
And if everything the Church does is wrong, how can I know she was not wrong in the very beginning about the necessity of Baptism?
And what is this "Negative infallibility" you mentioned?
"Negative infallibility" - FYI - means fallible -JFYI.
-
And what is this "Negative infallibility" you mentioned?
"Negative infallibility" - FYI - means fallible -JFYI.
It means that the law is not necessarily the best law possible, but not contrary to faith or morals.
-
And what is this "Negative infallibility" you mentioned?
"Negative infallibility" - FYI - means fallible -JFYI.
It means that the law is not necessarily the best law possible, but not contrary to faith or morals.
I see and agree...........Fr. Wathen calls this proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."
For me, aside from all the infallible declarations etc., I really like the way Fr. Wathen dissects this whole BOD thing - honestly, with the mind of a theologian here: http://fatherwathen.com/125.html
For example: ........(c) there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire;"
-
FWIW............
Again, IMO, to believe in BOD is tempting fate - were one to die, the fact is that there is no way to ever know whether BOD worked or not...............OTOH, had the person received the Sacrament, there would be no doubt whatsoever.
On a side note, we know that as far as value is concerned, each and every soul is worth more than the world and everything in it - riches and all. We know this because the Devil offered the world to Our Lord in exchange for His soul.
God created our souls, they are more value to Him than we can imagine. He will never take any catechumen before they are ready, just to condemn that soul to hell for all eternity - because singularly, we are each more valuable to God than we can imagine and He will do whatever He needs to do to help us, provided we sincerely seek His help. Who will have all men to be saved - but under His conditions, not our desires. If the catechumen sincerely desires baptism, he will receive baptism.
OTOH, He can reward heaven to the catechumen who only dies with BOD for all I care - but THAT is nowhere in Scripture or de fide declarations and has opened the door WIDE OPEN for all kinds of ridiculous teachings that outside the Church there is salvation.
For me, it is easy to believe that we are each unbelievably important to God, more important than we can ever understand in this life - when one believes this, there is no doubt that God will provide the Sacrament to whoever sincerely desires it before they face Him. There are no circuмstances we can conjure up that will ever change that. To believe otherwise shows some lack of faith in His infinite omnipotent and almighty power - IMO.
-
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? If you prefer, we will put it this way: If, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You would then be satisfied to desire glory, as though that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!”
This is in perfect agreement with what I said earlier. No one knows who receives the effects of the Sacrament invisibly. That is the entire reason why God created the Sacraments for men, because we are not pure spirits and thus know when we receive his grace by external rites and signs. It does not follow that it is thus impossible, indeed, theologians and the Church have thus affirmed it is possible.
And with regard to the above, though human authority could not judge him a murderer simply speaking, nevertheless he is one in intention. If he intended to kill a man but was unsuccessful, the sin would be imputed to him as if he committed the act. For God takes the intention as fact.
Your incessant reference to Providence as if this contradicts this doctrine is so absolutely irrelevant it is astounding that you keep bringing it up. One you assert this, you committ he fallacy of begging the question. Your notions on Providence leads to the extremely absurd notion that if a man were to miss Mass because of an illness it would be imputed to him as sin. I think you are a borderline heretic. And as was mentioned, you certainly possess the formal quality of an heretic, one who is stubborn and refuses correction in his false opinions.
-
Your incessant reference to Providence as if this contradicts this doctrine is so absolutely irrelevant it is astounding that you keep bringing it up. One you assert this, you committ he fallacy of begging the question. Your notions on Providence leads to the extremely absurd notion that if a man were to miss Mass because of an illness it would be imputed to him as sin. I think you are a borderline heretic. And as was mentioned, you certainly possess the formal quality of an heretic, one who is stubborn and refuses correction in his false opinions.
The Divine Providence of God, unlike earthly fathers, knows no bounds whatsoever.
As I have already related, your misinterpretation of Divine Providence as regards missing Mass is strictly that. I firmly believe that those who are without access to the Holy Sacrifice is of their own doing - *OR* God has not YET seen fit to provide it to them for reasons known only to Him.
There are perhaps millions of folks who do not have access to the Propitiatory Sacrifice that are not guilty of sin due to their circuмstances.............as for me, I personally have never had that problem because no matter where I lived, God provided the Holy Sacrifice on a silver platter for me - through no merit of mine I can assure you. All I can say is that for many years, my folks taught us to stay home and read our Missals rather than attend the NOM - it did not take very long IMO before we had the Holy Sacrifice handed to us.
Please take some time and discover what Divine Providence is. It is something that has not been taught for at least 50 years.
If you look in The Catholic dictionary (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd06856.htm) you will find that Divine Providence "leaves no room for chance or for fate" - which, btw, are precisely the two things that BOD supporters depend on to justify their belief in salvation without the Sacrament.
Also, FYI, one cannot be rightfully labeled heretical for echoing infallible Church teachings - just FYI.
-
The statement I submitted is either true, or it isn't, and not surprising that you two Feeneyite heretics won't touch it.
If anyone today professes the very same things, you are quick to say they believe against solemn Church teaching. Yet, contradictorily, won't touch the sources that taught that belief in the first place. Oh the evasion of heretics!
It matters not whether those sources, in themselves, were protected by infallibility when the author composed them. What matters is that Holy Mother Church who is protected by the Holy Ghost took them to Her own to present to the world of Catholics and clergy. Then it becomes part of the ordinary magisterium.
Luther himself was not infallible, yet it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to have not noticed and failed to condemn his errors against solemn Church teaching. Impossible; never happened, never can happen. Yet, supposedly these two sources I mention above taught against solemn teaching, and for at least two whole world's of mankind, born and dead after 200 years, and some have the audacity to effectively declare the Church never noticed those explicitly approved sources were really against solemn Church teaching.
-
And what is this "Negative infallibility" you mentioned?
"Negative infallibility" - FYI - means fallible -JFYI.
It means that the law is not necessarily the best law possible, but not contrary to faith or morals.
I see and agree...........Fr. Wathen calls this proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."
For me, aside from all the infallible declarations etc., I really like the way Fr. Wathen dissects this whole BOD thing - honestly, with the mind of a theologian here: http://fatherwathen.com/125.html
For example: ........(c) there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire;"
Fr. Wathen was NOT a theologian.
-
Fr. Wathen was NOT a theologian.
He was a theologian, just not a very good one. As were so many theologians trained traditionally yet succuмbed to Vatican II. Theologians CAN become heretics.
-
Stubborn, the Church "defines" something to tell us HOW we should believe a doctrine of the Church. The Church does not need to define something unless She feels an extraordinary necessity, most often when a doctrine is attacked or doubted.
I agree.
Trent was defending the faith against the protestant revolt. The Sacraments were under attack.
As I posted earlier, Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation.
"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" (Decree on the Sacraments).
I won't repost the rest of my reply from page 7 of this thread, but suffice to say that nowhere does Trent declare that the Sacrament is not necessary - - and we all know that BOD is not a Sacrament.
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." [section on baptism]
Are you saying that the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied what the Council itself just solemnly taught?!
It is plainly clear that the Catechism is merely explaining what the Council taught, where it says, "...the desire [of Baptism], men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification..."
Don't forget...."let him be anathema", to those denying this!
Was this the citation you were referring to in the Catechism of the Council of Trent?
Notice what it says: It's very easy to read.
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
"Will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Hmm... does that say SALVATION? Nope.
You can read into that more than what it says.
That doesn't contradict anything that has already been said in the article I originally cited. To say it does somehow is being intellectually dishonest.
-
parentsfortruth, another Feeneyite heretic! The Council said "unto salvation" and "the grace of justification". This is nothing but sanctifying grace. Catholic teaching is that anyone dying with sanctifying grace goes to heaven, nowhere else. The Catechism said those not receiving baptism but dying by unforeseen accident can receive "grace and righteousness". This is also sanctifying grace. Nothing else. You are wrong, and a heretic who cannot answer my question as I posed it.
-
parentsfortruth, another Feeneyite heretic! The Council said "unto salvation" and "the grace of justification". This is nothing but sanctifying grace. Catholic teaching is that anyone dying with sanctifying grace goes to heaven, nowhere else. The Catechism said those not receiving baptism but dying by unforeseen accident can receive "grace and righteousness". This is also sanctifying grace. Nothing else. You are wrong, and a heretic who cannot answer my question as I posed it.
That's your interpretation. Have fun with it. As for calling me a heretic, I believe everything the Church teaches, and UNTIL THE CHURCH MAKES AN ABSOLUTE PRONOUNCEMENT on "baptism of desire," I am at liberty to believe it DOES or DOES NOT exist!
-
I believe everything the Church teaches, and UNTIL THE CHURCH MAKES AN ABSOLUTE PRONOUNCEMENT on "baptism of desire," I am at liberty to believe it DOES or DOES NOT exist!
This very notion has been explicitly condemned by the Church.
-
Fr. Wathen was NOT a theologian.
He was a theologian, just not a very good one. As were so many theologians trained traditionally yet succuмbed to Vatican II. Theologians CAN become heretics.
This is a most uninformed and absurd statement.
-
The statement I submitted is either true, or it isn't, and not surprising that you two Feeneyite heretics won't touch it.
If anyone today professes the very same things, you are quick to say they believe against solemn Church teaching. Yet, contradictorily, won't touch the sources that taught that belief in the first place. Oh the evasion of heretics!
It matters not whether those sources, in themselves, were protected by infallibility when the author composed them. What matters is that Holy Mother Church who is protected by the Holy Ghost took them to Her own to present to the world of Catholics and clergy. Then it becomes part of the ordinary magisterium.
Luther himself was not infallible, yet it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Church to have not noticed and failed to condemn his errors against solemn Church teaching. Impossible; never happened, never can happen. Yet, supposedly these two sources I mention above taught against solemn teaching, and for at least two whole world's of mankind, born and dead after 200 years, and some have the audacity to effectively declare the Church never noticed those explicitly approved sources were really against solemn Church teaching.
Perhaps you might answer, Is this statement true or untrue?
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.
-
parentsfortruth, another Feeneyite heretic! The Council said "unto salvation" and "the grace of justification". This is nothing but sanctifying grace. Catholic teaching is that anyone dying with sanctifying grace goes to heaven, nowhere else. The Catechism said those not receiving baptism but dying by unforeseen accident can receive "grace and righteousness". This is also sanctifying grace. Nothing else. You are wrong, and a heretic who cannot answer my question as I posed it.
Sorry buddy, but you need more experience on this forum before you start labeling people as heretics, because you clearly don't know what a heretic is.
-
Well then Caminus.
It either does or it doesn't.
Some Catholics are saying it does.
Some Catholics are saying it doesn't.
And the people making such claims are very well intentioned, sacrament receiving Catholics.
I hear HOLY priests saying both that it IS and it is NOT.
I see SAINTS disagreeing on whether it happens or it doesn't.
So, if you think it is, then that's fine with me. SOME saints agree with you, but SOME saints AGREE WITH ME.
So does the Church condemn those saints that agree with me? Hardly.
This issue, HAS NOT been properly defined if there is THIS MUCH DISAGREEMENT on it, OR it HAS and the obvious is not sinking in.
My opinion on this whole matter is:
WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT WHAT GOD MIGHT DO?
God might do anything He wants to.
I don't concern myself.
I know what the Church teaches, and that is that there IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
The rest of it, I leave up to Him, and me saying that some Pigmy in Africa somewhere that didn't get BAPTIZED before he died, is BEYOND MY CONCERN, except that I pray that they receive the sacraments NECESSARY for salvation before they die.
I never understood why people obsessed over this, because why can people NOT JUST ADMIT THAT ONLY GOD KNOWS?
Idiotic!
-
Fr. Wathen was NOT a theologian.
He was a theologian, just not a very good one. As were so many theologians trained traditionally yet succuмbed to Vatican II. Theologians CAN become heretics.
He was not a theologian. You're using the term "theologian" rather loosely, don't you think?
-
parentsfortruth, another Feeneyite heretic! The Council said "unto salvation" and "the grace of justification". This is nothing but sanctifying grace. Catholic teaching is that anyone dying with sanctifying grace goes to heaven, nowhere else. The Catechism said those not receiving baptism but dying by unforeseen accident can receive "grace and righteousness". This is also sanctifying grace. Nothing else. You are wrong, and a heretic who cannot answer my question as I posed it.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/23d01b75-2ebc-4fad-8d88-eb03458efdfa.jpg)
-
I believe everything the Church teaches, and UNTIL THE CHURCH MAKES AN ABSOLUTE PRONOUNCEMENT on "baptism of desire," I am at liberty to believe it DOES or DOES NOT exist!
This very notion has been explicitly condemned by the Church.
Certainly. St. Athanasius considered the Arians to be heretics and treated them that way, even before the Church's pronouncement. Certainly as material heretics, because St. Athanasius didn't judge their wills.
If we believe parentsfortruth, we would have to say that all the Christians for generations after the Apostles were at liberty to believe or not believe anything they were taught by the Apostles, and other hierarchy, including the redemption and resurrection.
Another terrible heresy you have fallen for, parentsfortruth.
-
Fr. Wathen was NOT a theologian.
He was a theologian, just not a very good one. As were so many theologians trained traditionally yet succuмbed to Vatican II. Theologians CAN become heretics.
This is a most uninformed and absurd statement.
I suppose you are referring to, "not a very good one". This I say because Fr. Wathen was a Feeneyite.
As for being a "theologian", A Catholic Dictionary defined it as:
i. A master or student of theology.
ii. An aspirant to the priesthood who has completed his philosophical course, and is studying theology, often called in England a "divine."
-
You are once again talking ragtime, and micharacterizing the Church's teaching and pronouncements.
As to CanonII of the seventh session, is it true or untrue?
-
Fr. Wathen was NOT a theologian.
He was a theologian, just not a very good one. As were so many theologians trained traditionally yet succuмbed to Vatican II. Theologians CAN become heretics.
This is a most uninformed and absurd statement.
I suppose you are referring to, "not a very good one". This I say because Fr. Wathen was a Feeneyite.
As for being a "theologian", A Catholic Dictionary defined it as:
i. A master or student of theology.
ii. An aspirant to the priesthood who has completed his philosophical course, and is studying theology, often called in England a "divine."
What do you know of Father's theological training and qualifications?
The term "feeneyite" is the creation of the liberal minded and sentimental to distract from their own dissent from the dogmatic teaching of the Church.
-
Nonno, you're a complete troll. You are definitely Father C. Furthermore, you're labeling PFT as a heretic for no reason and are thumbing down people who disagree with you. What do you think a forum troll is?
(Oh and by the way, don't think you're the only one who can give thumbs-down.)
-
You are once again talking ragtime, and micharacterizing the Church's teaching and pronouncements.
As to CanonII of the seventh session, is it true or untrue?
It is most certainly true. That was written by the Council of Trent the very same day as the canon written eleven canons before your canon. The one which you are evading was about Sacraments in general and justification. Meaning that sanctifying grace can be obtained without the Sacraments of baptism or penance. Canon II speaks of the Sacrament alone....and baptism of desire is NOT a Sacrament. Both canons are true.
Now, back to the question you are taking pains to avoid, the following is either true, or it is not. Which is it?:
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied the Church's solemnly defined dogma and St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did too, and nobody in the Church's hierarchy noticed for hundreds of years."
-
It either does or it doesn't.
Some Catholics are saying it does.
Some Catholics are saying it doesn't.
And the people making such claims are very well intentioned, sacrament receiving Catholics.
I hear HOLY priests saying both that it IS and it is NOT.
I see SAINTS disagreeing on whether it happens or it doesn't.
So, if you think it is, then that's fine with me. SOME saints agree with you, but SOME saints AGREE WITH ME.
So does the Church condemn those saints that agree with me? Hardly.
This issue, HAS NOT been properly defined if there is THIS MUCH DISAGREEMENT on it, OR it HAS and the obvious is not sinking in.
My opinion on this whole matter is:
WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT WHAT GOD MIGHT DO?
God might do anything He wants to.
I don't concern myself.
I know what the Church teaches, and that is that there IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
The rest of it, I leave up to Him, and me saying that some Pigmy in Africa somewhere that didn't get BAPTIZED before he died, is BEYOND MY CONCERN, except that I pray that they receive the sacraments NECESSARY for salvation before they die.
I never understood why people obsessed over this, because why can people NOT JUST ADMIT THAT ONLY GOD KNOWS?
Why do you have a problem with this?
-
In the proper order, PFT, make a statement about my quote which I presented first. It has nothing to do with what God does privately or in the future. It has to do Church teaching, consistency of belief and past history. Feeneyites keep being obsessed with solemn dogma claiming it teaches against baptism of desire, and my quote forces them to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Don't just talk the talk, you need to walk the walk.
-
In the proper order, PFT, make a statement about my quote which I presented first. It has nothing to do with what God does privately or in the future. It has to do Church teaching, consistency of belief and past history. Feeneyites keep being obsessed with solemn dogma claiming it teaches against baptism of desire, and my quote forces them to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Don't just talk the talk, you need to walk the walk.
You ought to be very concerned with submission to solemn dogmas instead of trying to qualify or re-interpret them according to your own understanding.
No one has said the dogmas teach against the salvation by desire business.
They are positive declarations which do not include it and hence it is excluded by its absence. Were Christ's will for it to be revealed as such, it would be there, it is not.
You need to learn to walk the walk right into in the front door instead of taking a sentimental journey around to the back door where theives and robbers abound.
-
It is most certainly true. That was written by the Council of Trent the very same day as the canon written eleven canons before your canon. The one which you are evading was about Sacraments in general and justification. Meaning that sanctifying grace can be obtained without the Sacraments of baptism or penance. Canon II speaks of the Sacrament alone....and baptism of desire is NOT a Sacrament. Both canons are true.
Now, back to the question you are taking pains to avoid, the following is either true, or it is not. Which is it?:
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent denied the Church's solemnly defined dogma and St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, did too, and nobody in the Church's hierarchy noticed for hundreds of years."
Oh my! we now have penance of desire? Is that a doctrine as well?
As to the above quotations, Does the Catechism or St. Alphonse have Magisterial authority? You might consider that it is your understanding of these sources and your misunderstanding of dogma which creates the conflict.
-
Make a perfect act of contrition and your sins are forgiven before receiving the sacrament of penance. You can also make a spiritual communion without receiving our Lord sacramentally, but I suppose you already knew these things.
-
Perhaps you might answer, Is this statement true or untrue?
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.
There's no problem affirming its necessity as does St. Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article4
On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above (Article 3). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.
But, know that there is the Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood.
Water is an essential component for the sacrament of baptism, but not for baptism of desire, nor blood.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
-
J.Paul, you still evade my question about whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire, call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church. If you say not, then you cannot criticize anyone for professing what those two sources teach. If you say they do, then those sources are heretical, and you would have to say nobody in the whole Church for generations noticed.
You are stopped dead in your Feeneyite tracks. It is that simple, because the Church cannot even teach ambiguously, which is another modernist heresy. Read what Mortalium Animos said in 1928:
"the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men"
-
J.Paul, you still evade my question about whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire, call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church. If you say not, then you cannot criticize anyone for professing what those two sources teach. If you say they do, then those sources are heretical, and you would have to say nobody in the whole Church for generations noticed.
You are stopped dead in your Feeneyite tracks. It is that simple, because the Church cannot even teach ambiguously, which is another modernist heresy. Read what Mortalium Animos said in 1928:
"the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men"
Good heavens Nonno, you are the one infatuated with OPINION because THAT is all BOD is.
As was related in the article, it is NOT the opinion of the universal magisterium - not even close.
F Y I . . . . .St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas and most especially, St. Augustine ALL CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES - so DO NOT USE ANY OF THEM to support your personal belief which, btw, enjoys the OVERWHELMING CORE BELIEF OF THE NOVUS ORDO ESTABLISHMENT - which I think even YOU will agree is modernist!
The Catechism that you seem to base as your support of your primary argument on has been revised into extinction. Catechisms have been revised continuously - THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU SUSPICIOUS - IF NOT, THEN YOU NEED TO REVISIT THAT FACT.
Mat. 3:5 (http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm) 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.
-
Make a perfect act of contrition and your sins are forgiven before receiving the sacrament of penance. You can also make a spiritual communion without receiving our Lord sacramentally, but I suppose you already knew these things.
Who judges that this "Perfect act of Contrition" sufficed for sins to be forgiven? God alone.
The very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed to a priest, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of contrition obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.
Spiritual Communion will never save anyone's soul who dies in Original Sin - - - or mortal sin for that matter.
-
Nonno]J.Paul, you still evade my question about whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire, call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church. If you say not, then you cannot criticize anyone for professing what those two sources teach. If you say they do, then those sources are heretical, and you would have to say nobody in the whole Church for generations noticed.
You are stopped dead in your Feeneyite tracks. It is that simple, because the Church cannot even teach ambiguously, which is another modernist heresy. Read what Mortalium Animos said in 1928:
"the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men"
You continue your misleading assertions. It must be considered that neither had the intention to teach against the Church. It is your reading and understanding which attempts to place them in opposition.
In the end, Catechisms are not infallible as such, and saints personal opinions ard not solemn teaching of the Church and in many instances have been erroneous. Not something upon which to hang your eternity.
"the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men"
Thank you for pointing out your error. " The Revealed Doctrines", exactly what I and other have maintained. Baptism of Desire is a theological speculation and opinion. It is not a revealed doctrine of the Church according to your wrongheaded interpretation of it.
You apparently don't understand the difference.
So no, we are not stopped dead in our track, nor do we accept your derogatory and erroneous terms.
-
J.Paul, you still evade my question about whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire, call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church. If you say not, then you cannot criticize anyone for professing what those two sources teach. If you say they do, then those sources are heretical, and you would have to say nobody in the whole Church for generations noticed.
You are stopped dead in your Feeneyite tracks. It is that simple, because the Church cannot even teach ambiguously, which is another modernist heresy. Read what Mortalium Animos said in 1928:
"the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men"
Drop it, Father C. You're stopped in your extreme sedevacantism tracks.
-
Stubborn, J. Paul and SS, you are completely avoiding making a stand on whether those two sources oppose previous solemnly taught doctrine. The Feeneyite is truly put in the corner...because he does not have the truth.
-
"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.
St. Alphonsus states:
http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html
(. . .)
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.”
St. Thomas states:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
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 in agreeance with the citation of the Council of Trent provided by St. Alphonsus.
Make a perfect act of contrition and your sins are forgiven before receiving the sacrament of penance. You can also make a spiritual communion without receiving our Lord sacramentally, but I suppose you already knew these things.
Who judges that this "Perfect act of Contrition" sufficed for sins to be forgiven? God alone.
The very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed to a priest, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of contrition obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.
The forgiveness of sins can indeed be obtained apart from the actual reception of the sacrament of penance, through a perfect act of contrition, but not apart with at least the desire thereof. There is no suspicion.
In Section 14, Chapter 4 (Denzinger 898), of the Council of Trent, it's stated:
The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.
(. . .)
I know a desire for the reception of the sacrament of baptism is required in regards to baptism of desire, at least implicitly, and also I would believe in regards to the Eucharist in the case of a spiritual communion.
It is as you say, only God knows. I don't think a person can know whether or not they have successfully made a perfect act of contrition unless God were to reveal the fact to them.
I think I'm correct in stating that if a person did manage to make a perfect act of contrition the reception of the sacrament of penance would be a necessity of precept and not of means, in such a circuмstance, as the forgive of sins has truly been obtained.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5005.htm#article1
Objection 3. Further, nothing but sin is an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist. But the contrite should not go to Communion before going to confession. Therefore they have not yet received the forgiveness of their sins.
Reply to Objection 3. The dispensation of the Eucharist belongs to the ministers of the Church: wherefore a man should not go to Communion until his sin has been forgiven through the ministers of the Church, although his sin may be forgiven him before God.
Spiritual Communion will never save anyone's soul who dies in Original Sin - - - or mortal sin for that matter.
I mentioned spiritual communion precisely because the grace of the sacrament can be obtained without the actual reception of the Eucharist.
Just as the effects of the sacraments of baptism and penance can be obtained without the actual reception of those sacraments, with at least the desire thereof.
-
Stubborn, J. Paul and SS, you are completely avoiding making a stand on whether those two sources oppose previous solemnly taught doctrine. The Feeneyite is truly put in the corner...because he does not have the truth.
We're not avoiding anything.
The two sources you site CONTRADICT INFALLIBLE DECLARATIONS.
In your zeal to reward salvation to those unbaptized, you blind yourself to the obvious - simple as all that.
BTW, you freely slander the good Fr. Feeney and those who understand what he AND THE CHURCH TAUGHT, as "heretics" - completely unsubstantiated and without any foundation whatsoever.
Please, for your own good - try as hard as you can to avoid doing that from now on!
In the mean time, feel free to acknowledge what I posted a little while ago.......................
Good heavens Nonno, you are the one infatuated with OPINION because THAT is all BOD is.
As was related in the article, it is NOT the opinion of the universal magisterium - not even close.
F Y I . . . . .St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas and most especially, St. Augustine ALL CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES - so DO NOT USE ANY OF THEM to support your personal belief which, btw, enjoys the OVERWHELMING CORE BELIEF OF THE NOVUS ORDO ESTABLISHMENT - which I think even YOU will agree is modernist!
The Catechism that you seem to base as your support of your primary argument on has been revised into extinction. Catechisms have been revised continuously - THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU SUSPICIOUS - IF NOT, THEN YOU NEED TO REVISIT THAT FACT.
-
Stubborn, J. Paul and SS, you are completely avoiding making a stand on whether those two sources oppose previous solemnly taught doctrine. The Feeneyite is truly put in the corner...because he does not have the truth.
Stubborn has answered you more than adequately. Father Feeney observed at the time, and predicted that denial of the Church's doctrine of exclusive salvation, and opinions such as yours would lead to the destruction of the Church and the loss of the Catholic Faith by great numbers of faithful.
And here we are amid the ruins, with those who no longer understand their faith, casting those who maintain the integrity of Catholicism, into the outer darkness as heretics.
Predictions do come true.
-
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.”
Think about this for just a solitary second..............I believe you are sincere - in fact, I have zero doubt in my mind about that - if I am wrong, then you fooled me........ can you HONESTLY state that St. Alphonsus agrees with the Church teaching as taught from the footnote of Scripture?
Also - if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. ALPHONSUS proving that St. Alphonsus CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
St. Thomas states:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
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).
Again, if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. THOMAS proving that St. THOMAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
This is in agreeance with the citation of the Council of Trent provided by St. Alphonsus.
100% false. 100% unsubstantiated and 100% unfounded.
Make a perfect act of contrition and your sins are forgiven before receiving the sacrament of penance. You can also make a spiritual communion without receiving our Lord sacramentally, but I suppose you already knew these things.
Who judges that this "Perfect act of Contrition" sufficed for sins to be forgiven? God alone.
The very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed to a priest, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of contrition obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.
The forgiveness of sins can indeed be obtained apart from the actual reception of the sacrament of penance, through a perfect act of contrition, but not apart with at least the desire thereof. There is no suspicion.
In Section 14, Chapter 4 (Denzinger 898), of the Council of Trent, it's stated:
The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.
(. . .)
I know a desire for the reception of the sacrament of baptism is required in regards to baptism of desire, at least implicitly, and also I would believe in regards to the Eucharist in the case of a spiritual communion.
It is as you say, only God knows. I don't think a person can know whether or not they have successfully made a perfect act of contrition unless God were to reveal the fact to them.
I think I'm correct in stating that if a person did manage to make a perfect act of contrition the reception of the sacrament of penance would be a necessity of precept and not of means, in such a circuмstance, as the forgive of sins has truly been obtained.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5005.htm#article1
Objection 3. Further, nothing but sin is an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist. But the contrite should not go to Communion before going to confession. Therefore they have not yet received the forgiveness of their sins.
Reply to Objection 3. The dispensation of the Eucharist belongs to the ministers of the Church: wherefore a man should not go to Communion until his sin has been forgiven through the ministers of the Church, although his sin may be forgiven him before God.
Spiritual Communion will never save anyone's soul who dies in Original Sin - - - or mortal sin for that matter.
I mentioned spiritual communion precisely because the grace of the sacrament can be obtained without the actual reception of the Eucharist.
Just as the effects of the sacraments of baptism and penance can be obtained without the actual reception of those sacraments, with at least the desire thereof.[/quote]
This is where the "rubber meets the road" so to speak.
While the "Spiritual Communion" might have the same effect as Sacramental Communion, UNLESS YOU ARE GOD ALMIGHTY, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW.
Nonno AND YOURSELF ARE only too happy to place insignificance on the explicit words of Our Lord God's command as well as DEFINED - AS - BINDING EXPLICIT INFALLIBLE DECLARATIONS in favor of St. Alphonsus', St. Thomas' and who knows who else ever decides to contermand Our Lord God's EXPLICIT command INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE NOVUS ORDO CHURCH'S MANTRA OF SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH VIA BOD!
...........................theres no way for me to format this post properly - stupid thing!
-
If you don't mind, let me fix your quotes.
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.”
Think about this for just a solitary second..............I believe you are sincere - in fact, I have zero doubt in my mind about that - if I am wrong, then you fooled me........ can you HONESTLY state that St. Alphonsus agrees with the Church teaching as taught from the footnote of Scripture?
Also - if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. ALPHONSUS proving that St. Alphonsus CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
St. Thomas states:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
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).
Again, if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. THOMAS proving that St. THOMAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
This is in agreeance with the citation of the Council of Trent provided by St. Alphonsus.
100% false. 100% unsubstantiated and 100% unfounded.
Make a perfect act of contrition and your sins are forgiven before receiving the sacrament of penance. You can also make a spiritual communion without receiving our Lord sacramentally, but I suppose you already knew these things.
Who judges that this "Perfect act of Contrition" sufficed for sins to be forgiven? God alone.
The very fact that the Church requires every mortal sin committed to be confessed to a priest, whether one is perfectly sorry for it or not, shows the Church has a maternal suspicion of this perfect act of contrition obtaining forgiveness apart from the Sacrament of forgiveness instituted by Christ.
The forgiveness of sins can indeed be obtained apart from the actual reception of the sacrament of penance, through a perfect act of contrition, but not apart with at least the desire thereof. There is no suspicion.
In Section 14, Chapter 4 (Denzinger 898), of the Council of Trent, it's stated:
The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.
(. . .)
I know a desire for the reception of the sacrament of baptism is required in regards to baptism of desire, at least implicitly, and also I would believe in regards to the Eucharist in the case of a spiritual communion.
It is as you say, only God knows. I don't think a person can know whether or not they have successfully made a perfect act of contrition unless God were to reveal the fact to them.
I think I'm correct in stating that if a person did manage to make a perfect act of contrition the reception of the sacrament of penance would be a necessity of precept and not of means, in such a circuмstance, as the forgive of sins has truly been obtained.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5005.htm#article1
Objection 3. Further, nothing but sin is an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist. But the contrite should not go to Communion before going to confession. Therefore they have not yet received the forgiveness of their sins.
Reply to Objection 3. The dispensation of the Eucharist belongs to the ministers of the Church: wherefore a man should not go to Communion until his sin has been forgiven through the ministers of the Church, although his sin may be forgiven him before God.
Spiritual Communion will never save anyone's soul who dies in Original Sin - - - or mortal sin for that matter.
I mentioned spiritual communion precisely because the grace of the sacrament can be obtained without the actual reception of the Eucharist.
Just as the effects of the sacraments of baptism and penance can be obtained without the actual reception of those sacraments, with at least the desire thereof.
This is where the "rubber meets the road" so to speak.
While the "Spiritual Communion" might have the same effect as Sacramental Communion, UNLESS YOU ARE GOD ALMIGHTY, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW.
Nonno AND YOURSELF ARE only too happy to place insignificance on the explicit words of Our Lord God's command as well as DEFINED - AS - BINDING EXPLICIT INFALLIBLE DECLARATIONS in favor of St. Alphonsus', St. Thomas' and who knows who else ever decides to contermand Our Lord God's EXPLICIT command INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE NOVUS ORDO CHURCH'S MANTRA OF SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH VIA BOD!
-
can you HONESTLY state that St. Alphonsus agrees with the Church teaching as taught from the footnote of Scripture?
Also - if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. ALPHONSUS proving that St. Alphonsus CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
By footnote do you mean commentary found in a Bible regarding verse John 3:5?
Please post the statement.
Again, if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. THOMAS proving that St. THOMAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
Again, please post the statement.
This is in agreeance with the citation of the Council of Trent provided by St. Alphonsus.
100% false. 100% unsubstantiated and 100% unfounded.
Could you please explain why.
Who judges that this "Perfect act of Contrition" sufficed for sins to be forgiven? God alone.
What of the citation given from Session 14, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent?
While the "Spiritual Communion" might have the same effect as Sacramental Communion, UNLESS YOU ARE GOD ALMIGHTY, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW.
I agree, only to whom God reveals the fact can such a person know they have received the grace.
Nonno AND YOURSELF ARE only too happy to place insignificance on the explicit words of Our Lord God's command as well as DEFINED - AS - BINDING EXPLICIT INFALLIBLE DECLARATIONS in favor of St. Alphonsus', St. Thomas' and who knows who else ever decides to contermand Our Lord God's EXPLICIT command INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE NOVUS ORDO CHURCH'S MANTRA OF SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH VIA BOD!
I think the teaching of those saints are in accordance with the teachings of the Church. The theology manuals that I've read that teach baptism of desire cite the same as St. Alphonsus in regards to the Council of Trent.
The Conciliar Church which teaches non-Catholic sects being a means of salvation utilized by the Holy Ghost is apples compared to the oranges that is baptism of desire.
-
...........................theres no way for me to format this post properly - stupid thing!
The same thing happened to me earlier, as you see.
Perhaps St. Alphonse is wiggling his finger in Heaven?
-
LOL
All I know is that I did not desire the post to be formatted like that! ha ha ha ha
-
Stubborn, J. Paul and SS, you are completely avoiding making a stand on whether those two sources oppose previous solemnly taught doctrine. The Feeneyite is truly put in the corner...because he does not have the truth.
We aren't avoiding anything. If you don't like this forum then leave. You don't have to stay.
-
We're not avoiding anything.
The two sources you site CONTRADICT INFALLIBLE DECLARATIONS.
Ah, yeah, you're avoiding it. Since you ignore Nonno, maybe you'll see the point he makes if someone else posts it:
you still evade my question about whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire, call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church. If you say not, then you cannot criticize anyone for professing what those two sources teach. If you say they do, then those sources are heretical, and you would have to say nobody in the whole Church for generations noticed.
Stubborn, J. Paul and SS, you are completely avoiding making a stand on whether those two sources oppose previous solemnly taught doctrine.
Is the game still on, or can we declare checkmate?
-
I'm going to interupt here so I don't have to start a new thread on this:
Is the sacramental water baptism necessary for salvation or doesn't it matter if you are baptized by water, desire, or blood?
Also, I read a thread on FE that the moderate view of BOD is that only catechumens are baptized by desire because it is like they are in the narthex of the Church. They are entering the Body of the Church (nave), but not fully incorporated into the Body, yet still in the Church.
Sorry if these questions were already answered: I haven't been following the discussion.
-
SS, your avoidance of a direct question, repeatedly, only makes my point clearer. Why would I want to go.
Stubborn finally came close to an answer by saying, "The two sources you site CONTRADICT INFALLIBLE DECLARATIONS."
J.Paul, too,"Stubborn has answered you more than adequately."
The reason it is close, but no cigar, is that I made it clear that I was speaking of PREVIOUS solemn teaching. That means that St. Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception are not in the category of what I am addressing.
Now let's see what answer you Feeneyites give.
-
Any existing docuмents allegedly ex-communicating or calling Fr Feeney to Rome are fraudulent.
-
SS, your avoidance of a direct question, repeatedly, only makes my point clearer. Why would I want to go.
And where on this thread did you ask me a question?
Of course you don't want to go. You want to stay and troll more. I also could euqually say you avoid direct questions, it took you several days to say you weren't Father C and you now avoid responding to all further accusations. All you did was change your posting style somewhat. Clever, but it doesn't fool me.
-
SS, your avoidance of a direct question, repeatedly, only makes my point clearer. Why would I want to go.
And where on this thread did you ask me a question?
SS, it is an open question to all Feeneyites, and repeated several times. You appear inimical to this thread. I have never seen an anti-Feeneyite act the way you do in such a thread as this. So, to clarify, this question is asked of you, too.
-
can you HONESTLY state that St. Alphonsus agrees with the Church teaching as taught from the footnote of Scripture?
Also - if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. ALPHONSUS proving that St. Alphonsus CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
By footnote do you mean commentary found in a Bible regarding verse John 3:5?
Please post the statement.
Here are two footnoted from John 3:5........From Douay-Rheims http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm :
"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.
From the Haydock Bible http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id94.html
....The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism...........
And here, I will add Trent's declaration from the Canon on 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.
Again, if I post a statement (and I certainly can) FROM ST. THOMAS proving that St. THOMAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF in regards to BOD - would that make even a shred of difference to you? - To any BODers?
Again, please post the statement.
This is in agreeance with the citation of the Council of Trent provided by St. Alphonsus.
100% false. 100% unsubstantiated and 100% unfounded.
Could you please explain why.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm SUMMA: Article 1. Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
St. Thomas: I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation...............Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
St. Alphonsus: It should be known that baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the Sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter heaven. - his book, "Preaching of God‟s Word"
These statements from the Saints are in perfect agreement with Trent.
-
1. I have not found any father of the Church who taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring a saving efficacy of a baptism of desire. If anyone can supply me with quotes indicating otherwise, I will correct my assertion.
Nonno, can you? Let's hear it.
Looks like you have tons of time, so let's see you refute these points.
I'll go point by point because I don't want to overwhelm you.
Show me where ANY father or doctor of the Church taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring "baptism of desire" please.
It doesn't seem like you even have the capability of touching that article I linked. If you're intellectually honest, you would, but if you continue to evade it, then you're not. Let's hear your refutation of the first point.
-
SS, your avoidance of a direct question, repeatedly, only makes my point clearer. Why would I want to go.
And where on this thread did you ask me a question?
SS, it is an open question to all Feeneyites, and repeated several times. You appear inimical to this thread. I have never seen an anti-Feeneyite act the way you do in such a thread as this. So, to clarify, this question is asked of you, too.
Yeah, I forgot what the question was. Could you please remind me?
-
Here are two footnoted from John 3:5........From Douay-Rheims http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm :
"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.
From the Haydock Bible http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id94.html
....The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism...........
And here, I will add Trent's declaration from the Canon on 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.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading Matter and form of the sacrament:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Some of the early Fathers, as Tertullian (On Baptism 1) and St. Augustine (Adv. Hær., xlvi and lix) enumerate heretics who rejected water entirely as a constituent of baptism. Such were the Gaians, Manichians, Seleucians, and Hermians. In the Middle Ages, the Waldensians are said to have held the same tenet (Ewald, Contra Walden., vi). Some of the sixteenth century reformers, while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV, xv).
Looking up the citation from Calvin's works, he stated:
Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver?
All who teach baptism of desire also teach the proper matter of the sacrament is natural water, and a necessary component, as I quoted from St. Thomas in a earlier post.
Calvin held that the water of baptism was a metaphor for Christ's blood. I've read those who teach against baptism of desire and blood say that these are "metaphorical" baptisms. That doesn't compute, as those who teach these doctrines don't teach that the water is symbolic of something else as Calvin is shown to do.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm SUMMA: Article 1. Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
St. Thomas: I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation...............Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
I'll quote what I posted earlier:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
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).
St. Alphonsus: It should be known that baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the Sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter heaven. - his book, "Preaching of God‟s Word"
Since his teaching of the doctrine as already been quoted, supporting baptism of desire, in fact calling it "de fide" this is to be interpreted in the same manner in which St. Thomas who I've quoted above.
A man can be saved without baptism of water, but not without at least baptism of desire or blood. No man is saved without baptism, absolutely so.
And before anyone objects to three baptisms where in scripture it is stated:
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Let me first quote St. Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
But I also want to state the fact that we confess one Lord, while at the same time confessing the Father is Lord, Jesus is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord.
No contradiction, merely a paradox.
-
Show me where ANY father or doctor of the Church taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring "baptism of desire" please.
St. Augustine, City of God Book 13, Chapter 7:
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
The New Testament is surely apostolic. These are the verses utilized in support of baptism of desire and blood in theology manuals.
-
Acts 10:47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
From the Haydock Commentary, concerning verse 47:
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id125.html
Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,
Cornelius, in receiving the remission of sins before having been baptized with water means that he was in the Church, even while not a member. Therefore, it's not absolutely necessary to be a member of the Church to be within Her.
-
Perhaps it might be a good idea to lay out my position. I don't believe in implicit faith.
As to the four doctrines:
1) God Exists
2) He rewards to the just and punishes the wicked
3) The Holy Trinity
4) The Incarnation of Christ (life, death, resurrection)
Even those who expound on implicit faith agree 1 & 2 are not enough to have supernatural faith, which they don't deny is absolutely necessary. I think perhaps they may say that a belief in a redeemer would suffice, as between 1, 2 & 3, 4; but I can't recall a quote to that effect. The circuмstances for the salvation during the Old Testament are really vague. It's a question of comparing intrinsic necessity and divine precept in those arguments.
Just in the same way, before it's institution baptism was not necessary at all, so it's a question of 3 & 4 being only of divine precept which can be dispensed of in certain circuмstances.
Anyhow...
I'm in agreeance with Mons. Fenton that even with the letter from the Holy Office having only quoted the verse from Hebrews, that explicit faith in 3 & 4 is necessary.
In regards to material heretics, in those things which they believe through invincible ignorance, false doctrines, although is no sin on their part I believe is a punishment, on account of other sins, and these are what will damn them, if not converted.
In essence, I don't believe there can be any affiliation with a heretical or schismatic sect.
[edited]
-
A note to Raoul, I've technically taken the position of Fr. Michael Müller, whom you were at one time so fond of.
-
What am I doing wrong with the code here? It's not showing up correctly. I keep putting the FOrmat MB code box, and it's showing up the same way and unchecking.... what the heck?
-
Show me where ANY father or doctor of the Church taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring "baptism of desire" please.
St. Augustine, City of God Book 13, Chapter 7:
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
The New Testament is surely apostolic. These are the verses utilized in support of baptism of desire and blood in theology manuals.
This doesn't work because of this:
It is in one of his seven books that he wrote against the Donatists that we first find Augustine speculating on this question. He first picked up the pen to refute the Donatists, in their schism and heresy, in 391, after his ordination as a priest and before he was consecrated a bishop. So, the following quote is from his earlier days as a Catholic theologian, perhaps shortly after his episcopal consecration: “That the place of baptism can sometimes assuredly be taken by suffering, the Blessed Cyprian takes as no mean proof the words addressed to the thief who was not baptized. . . . In considering which again and again, I find that not only suffering for the Name of Christ can make up for the lack of baptism, but also the Faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that lack of time prevents the celebration of the sacrament of baptism.” And, a few sentences later in the same book, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. IV, Chap. 22, Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicuм # 1630)
Early on in his writings, Augustine laid great emphasis on the natural power of the will under the influence of actual graces but, as yet, unaided by sanctifying grace. Later, in his battle against the Pelagians, he put all the emphasis on grace, which no man can merit. Even the most virtuous of unbaptized believers, he would later argue, could not merit the gift of grace that comes with the sacrament. God will call whom He will. More on this further on. For now, I would like to quote from Augustine the Theologian by Eugene Teselle, where the author makes a most revealing insight that could explain why the African doctor favored a baptism in desire, at least at one point after his conversion: “Augustine asserts that nothing is more within the power of the will than the will itself, so that whoever wishes to love rightly and honorably, can achieve it simply by willing it; the velle is already the habere.” (Teselle cites Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio. I, 12, 26, & 13, 29 as a source for his assertion.)
This was his first speculation. He went onto say later on in his life...
What Saint Augustine expressed about baptism of desire in his treatise against the Donatists was not his conviction when he wrote his commentary on the Gospel of Saint John. Therein, he states that “no matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (Chapter 13, Tract 7) Again, Father van der Meer, in his book, Augustine the Bishop, cites a like passage from the doctor: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever” (Page 150). Note here that Augustine was not referring to hesitant catechumens who presumptuously put off their baptism, but to “sincere catechumens.”
He changed his view on it later on. You quoting one thing he said when he clearly states a contrary opinion later does not hold water.
-
This was his first speculation. He went onto say later on in his life...
Dates are not given with the quotes, is there any citation for when they were made?
-
Apparently the City of God was around 419 A.D.
-
Here's the other part that I didn't get to finish when I was typing this up. Thanks for cleaning it up. I don't know why it's not working right.
You have his recantation here:
Animas non liberat sive ab originalibus sive a propriis peccatis nisi in ecclesia Christi baptismus Christi (de Nat. et orig. an. 1, 13, 16; cf. ibid. 4, 11, 16) [It is only Christ’s baptism, in the Church of Christ, that frees from both original sin and from personal sins]
Further, he says:
Evacuatur autem (scil. crux Christi) si aliquo modo praeter illius sacramentum ad iustitiam vitamque aeternam pervenire posse dicatur (Aug. de nat. et grat. 7. 7) [Whoever thinks that one can arrive at justification and eternal life in any other way than through the sacrament of the cross of Christ empties it of value].
And so, if you read the article I cited, it deals very thoroughly with Saint Augustine, and how his position is inconsistent, and he says things that both support it (initially) and THEN he changes his position later on.
So you can't say that he believed in "baptism of desire" because it is clear he did not.
Wow, all of a sudden it's working. :)
-
Correction, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Under the heading General apology
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02089a.htm
In The City of God (begun in 413, but Books 20-22 were written in 426)
419 may have indicated the year of a specific book.
-
So clearly we can't say that Saint Augustine, being in the category of "Father and Doctor of the Church" did NOT hold Baptism of Desire, because it's been thoroughly pointed out in the article that he didn't.
So going back to the original point, sans Saint Augustine, can you refute this:
I have not found any father of the Church who taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring a saving efficacy of a baptism of desire. If anyone can supply me with quotes indicating otherwise, I will correct my assertion.
-
You have his recantation here:
Animas non liberat sive ab originalibus sive a propriis peccatis nisi in ecclesia Christi baptismus Christi (de Nat. et orig. an. 1, 13, 16; cf. ibid. 4, 11, 16) [It is only Christ’s baptism, in the Church of Christ, that frees from both original sin and from personal sins]
The citation is unintelligable, what is it precisely from?
Further, he says:
Evacuatur autem (scil. crux Christi) si aliquo modo praeter illius sacramentum ad iustitiam vitamque aeternam pervenire posse dicatur (Aug. de nat. et grat. 7. 7) [Whoever thinks that one can arrive at justification and eternal life in any other way than through the sacrament of the cross of Christ empties it of value].
I think I am in need of a citation in English (unless it's not a translated work, although a date would be nice too.)
-
I've identified the second citation:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZSfPpo50c9YC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=augustine+De+Lib.+Arb.&source=bl&ots=QxmdTXmuFF&sig=0bVfkPAq4AUl_NxeBzH0XzsGNlM&hl=en&ei=B18XTuvlBuTKiAKyx-HSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=augustine%20De%20Lib.%20Arb.&f=false
De natura et gratia
-
http://augustinewritings.blogspot.com/
96. Nature and Grace (De natura et gratia)(against Pelagius)
97. The Nature and Origin of the Soul (De natura et originae animae)
-
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.iii.html
“on nature and grace.” One Book. Written A.D. 415.
(De Naturâ et Gratiâ, contra Pelagium.)
-
From the same link:
“on the soul and its origin.” Four Books. Written late in 419.
(De Animâ et ejus Origine.)
-
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm
On Nature and Grace
415 A.D.
Chapter 7
Of none effect, however, it is rendered, if it be contended that by any other means than by Christ's own sacrament it is possible to attain to righteousness and everlasting life.
City of God 413-426 A.D.
Book 13, Chapter 7
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120113.htm
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" Matthew and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
Cheesy math skills of mine.
22 books in the City of God.
426-413= 13 years
13 years/22 books = 1 book every .6 years
Book 13 is the citation, 13 * .6 = nearly 8 years
413+8= 421 A.D.
That beats out both other citations.
-
parentsfortruth said:
So clearly we can't say that Saint Augustine, being in the category of "Father and Doctor of the Church" did NOT hold Baptism of Desire, because it's been thoroughly pointed out in the article that he didn't.
Number one: Saying that baptism is necessary is not the same as refuting baptism of desire. Can you find a quote where St. Augustine clearly says? "Woe is me, I used to hold this position that you can be saved by only desiring baptism, and now I realize how dreadfully wrong I was?" Feeneyites always pull these quotes that say "One must be baptized to be saved," and they think this is a refutation of baptism of desire.
If we're going to play this game, and play everything totally literally and not want to understand the clear sense of things, let's just be Protestants and yank everything Christ says out of context. Here's one: "Call no man father." Ah, see! And Catholics call priests "father," that means we're heretics!
The fact is, baptism of desire has been taught by almost EVERYONE starting with St. Bernard nearly a millenium ago. By the time we reach the 19th century, I'm pretty sure you will not be able to find one single prominent theologian who teaches against it, which is why people go dig up this American priest Father Michael Muller, as well as Orestes Brownson, since they are the ones that confirm what they want they hear. In Europe today I only know of one person who holds the theories of Father Feeney, and that is through hearsay, David Landry told me he knew someone in Germany... :cowboy:
Number Two: If you can find such a quote, what does that mean? Why do you assume that the old St. Augustine overrides the young St. Augustine? Are last thoughts always the best? So many assumptions here! At the time, baptism of desire was still an open question.
parentsfortruth said:
So going back to the original point, sans Saint Augustine, can you refute this:
Brian Kelly said:
I have not found any father of the Church who taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring a saving efficacy of a baptism of desire. If anyone can supply me with quotes indicating otherwise, I will correct my assertion.
Can you find one Father of the Church who taught the Immaculate Conception? Much of what we know now as dogmas were only implied in the teachings of the Fathers. In the case of baptism of desire, there is more proof in the Fathers than there is for the Immaculate Conception. Because if any of them taught baptism of blood, and I know at least one did, that in itself is baptism of desire.
-
parentsfortruth said:
So clearly we can't say that Saint Augustine, being in the category of "Father and Doctor of the Church" did NOT hold Baptism of Desire, because it's been thoroughly pointed out in the article that he didn't.
Number one: Saying that baptism is necessary is not the same as refuting baptism of desire. Can you find a quote where St. Augustine clearly says? "Woe is me, I used to hold this position that you can be saved by only desiring baptism, and now I realize how dreadfully wrong I was?" Feeneyites always pull these quotes that say "One must be baptized to be saved," and they think this is a refutation of baptism of desire.
If we're going to play this game, and play everything totally literally and not want to understand the clear sense of things, let's just be Protestants and yank everything Christ says out of context. Here's one: "Call no man father." Ah, see! And Catholics call priests "father," that means we're heretics!
The fact is, baptism of desire has been taught by almost EVERYONE starting with St. Bernard nearly a millenium ago. By the time we reach the 19th century, I'm pretty sure you will not be able to find one single prominent theologian who teaches against it, which is why people go dig up this American priest Father Michael Muller, as well as Orestes Brownson, since they are the ones that confirm what they want they hear. In Europe today I only know of one person who holds the theories of Father Feeney, and that is through hearsay, David Landry told me he knew someone in Germany... :cowboy:
Number Two: If you can find such a quote, what does that mean? Why do you assume that the old St. Augustine overrides the young St. Augustine? Are last thoughts always the best? So many assumptions here! At the time, baptism of desire was still an open question.
parentsfortruth said:
So going back to the original point, sans Saint Augustine, can you refute this:
Brian Kelly said:
I have not found any father of the Church who taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring a saving efficacy of a baptism of desire. If anyone can supply me with quotes indicating otherwise, I will correct my assertion.
Can you find one Father of the Church who taught the Immaculate Conception? Much of what we know now as dogmas were only implied in the teachings of the Fathers. In the case of baptism of desire, there is more proof in the Fathers than there is for the Immaculate Conception. Because if any of them taught baptism of blood, and I know at least one did, that in itself is baptism of desire.
Raoul, did you read the article I cited?
I'm going to sum it up real quick before I jet out the door here:
People that propose that "baptism of desire" exists are trying to make the people that don't, prove a negative.
That never works. The Church deals in absolutes, not hypotheticals, and "baptism of desire" is a hypothetical.
And no proponent of "baptism of desire" can call it a sacrament.
The Church teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
The Church deals in absolutes.
It is not explicit teaching of the Church (no matter how many people try to twist the meaning of "or the desire thereof" in Trent) that there exists a "baptism of desire."
Therefore, for anyone to try to paint me like some kind of heretic is ridiculous.
This issue is a complete waste of time in my opinion, and I think Mr. Kelly explained it as thoroughly as anyone. From here on out, go and write a note to him about the confusion surrounding it. He's intellectually honest enough to ask for some refutation, and if you have that refutation, go ahead and provide it to him.
I know what the Church teaches. The Church teaches, and Christ said that you must be born of "water and the Holy Ghost" to get to heaven. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of Her, and I am not going to sit here and speculate on what he may or may not do for some pygmy in Africa. It's a complete waste of energy and an issue that was introduced purposely to foment dissent about something we know nothing about.
Saint Augustine made different statements throughout his life about this issue. Nothing definitive, and to say he did is just being completely dishonest.
Other saints, as were pointed out in the article I originally cited, had differing views, and since there hasn't been a DEFINED definition of so-called "baptism" of desire, it is not incuмbent on me as a Catholic to believe it.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
The second, is what "baptism of desire" is.
And I say everything in charity, even to the Nonnos that try to say I'm some kind of heretic.
-
you will not be able to find one single prominent theologian who teaches against it, which is why people go dig up this American priest Father Michael Muller, as well as Orestes Brownson, since they are the ones that confirm what they want they hear.
Neither Father Muller nor Orestes Brownson deny baptism of desire.
-
People that propose that "baptism of desire" exists are trying to make the people that don't, prove a negative.
One is perfectly free to hold that all of the elect receive water baptism, and that such is a "necessity of infallibility" willed by God. That is, one is free to believe that God predestines His elect to the receipt of the sacrament of faith, and that His Providence ensures that this happens.
What is ridiculous is denying the Church's teaching that a person who died with faith and charity and either an explicit or implicit desire for baptism would be saved without water baptism. The Church teaches this, period.
One is free to deny that this in fact happens, without getting into being at odds with the teaching of the Church.
-
Excerpts from The Catholic Dogma by Fr. Michael Müller:
http://eens123.blogspot.com/2009/07/some-important-passages-in-catholic.html
Not guilty of the sin of heresy are all those who, without any fault of theirs, were brought up in a sect of Protestantism, and who never had an opportunity of knowing better. This class of Protestants are called invincibly or inculpably ignorant of the true religion, or material heretics...
...material heretics may call them selves Christians, and their sects Christian Churches; but they are not the right sort of Christians and their sects are not the true Church of Christ. They are not Catholic Christians....
As long, then, as a material heretic, though through inculpable ignorance, adheres to an heretical sect, he is separated from Christ, because he is separated from his Body—the Catholic Church. In that state he cannot make any supernatural acts of divine faith, hope, and charity, which are necessary to obtain life everlasting, and therefore, if he dies in that state, he is pronounced infallibly lost by St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus and all the great Doctors of the Church.
God the teacher of mankind, Volume 6 by Fr. Michael Müller:
(http://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA218&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U14Ofx_Islxto8Ot-pa8FgiwRyfqg&ci=106%2C1063%2C805%2C275&edge=0)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA219&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3_-nb_cI_xJRWU64rCdKdLv1YuhQ&ci=87%2C142%2C828%2C1190&edge=0)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA220&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U0kZMb_ZhHNl66N8unujvIs2imlJg&ci=118%2C138%2C781%2C1163&edge=0)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA221&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2-FDkLEgDstmV4D4dzpjNd4f5sGg&ci=115%2C149%2C798%2C1183&edge=0)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA222&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3tDpxvEuvdX3YLQSt5mMFB8_sTJg&ci=118%2C140%2C769%2C449&edge=0)
-
I don't believe in implicit faith.
Even though it's taught by the Church?
Regarding BoD, I'm with Raoul. I believe in it.
-
And no proponent of "baptism of desire" can call it a sacrament.
FWIW, none actually tries to do this -- it is just a straw man invented by those who argue against it.
Therefore, for anyone to try to paint me like some kind of heretic is ridiculous.
This is true. Many involved in such debates cross various lines all too easily. This is a sad-but-true aspect of these difficult, dark days.
Saint Augustine made different statements throughout his life about this issue. Nothing definitive, and to say he did is just being completely dishonest.
If St. Augustine (among other Doctors) could be uncertain, for lack of a better term, how are a bunch of know-nothing moderns going to solve the matter in a way that quickly and definitively satisfies everybody? The countless, lengthy threads all over virtual Traddieland make it clear we are not going to solve this one by mere debate or discussion, however lengthy or learned. That is to be expected, as none of us is Holy Church.
And I say everything in charity, even to the Nonnos that try to say I'm some kind of heretic.
Nonno lives to mix it up, sweetheart -- and has done so for YEARS. Ignore him. You're NOT a heretic :)
-
I don't believe in implicit faith.
Even though it's taught by the Church?
Regarding BoD, I'm with Raoul. I believe in it.
It's taught in 2 or 3 theology manuals that I know of. If I recall Tanquerey did not, but I don't own those volumes anymore, so I can't check.
From a previous link, first paragraph:
http://eens123.blogspot.com/2009/07/some-important-passages-in-catholic.html
"Some theologians," says St. Alphonsus, "hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved." (First Command. No. 8.)
St. Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article8
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm
Q. 14: Faith, Article 11
Is it necessary to believe explicitly?
Difficulties
1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.
Answers to Difficulties
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).
-
Even though it's taught by the Church?
Spiritus, I would challenge you on that one. Where is it "taught by the Church"?
I'm with Trad123 on this one - I don't believe in implicit faith.
-
So far, all of the Feeneyites & their sympathizers here have repeatedly not answered this question, but are obviously struggling with talking around it and avoiding it. Nothing "intellectually honest" about that. This is a profession concerning the Faith (not some personal question like, how old are you, or, how much do you weigh.)
Did the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus teach in opposition to any solemn teaching of the Church previous to them?
Catechism of the Council of Trent [section on baptism]:
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95., "Concerning Baptism":
"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"
Yes, or No?
This is directed particularly to Stubborn, SS, parentsfortruth and J.Paul.
-
Catechism.....no
St Alphonsus...yes
-
No, they didn't. Do you somehow think they did? And no, I'm not a Feeneyite.
-
Stubborn answered you directly. You will need to erect another strawman if you wish to persist.
It is very unlikely that either intended to contradict or oppose defined dogmas of the Church. It is most likely that to suit your belief, you read them in such a way that they do. And as well neither had the authority to do it anyway.
-
Stubborn answered you directly. You will need to erect another strawman if you wish to persist.
It is very unlikely that either intended to contradict or oppose defined dogmas of the Church. It is most likely that to suit your belief, you read them in such a way that they do. And as well neither had the authority to do it anyway.
:applause:
-
No, they didn't. Do you somehow think they did? And no, I'm not a Feeneyite.
You asked what the question was because you forgot. I have repeated it. Please answer, then.
-
Stubborn answered you directly. You will need to erect another strawman if you wish to persist.
It is very unlikely that either intended to contradict or oppose defined dogmas of the Church. It is most likely that to suit your belief, you read them in such a way that they do. And as well neither had the authority to do it anyway.
The hesitancy to answer from all of you is a part of history now you cannot erase, and it simply doesn't look good for y'all. Good enough to get a direct answer, however delayed it was. Nothing strawman in the historical delay to answer a simple question. It has its significance. There IS a wrong and a right answer, so the wrong answer doesn't make it end there. I will address that shortly with Mr. Stubborn.
-
No, they didn't. Do you somehow think they did? And no, I'm not a Feeneyite.
You asked what the question was because you forgot. I have repeated it. Please answer, then.
I just did.
-
No, they didn't. Do you somehow think they did? And no, I'm not a Feeneyite.
You asked what the question was because you forgot. I have repeated it. Please answer, then.
I just did.
Sorry, SS, but unless you give a Yes, or No, I don't consider your answer clear enough.
-
I said "no" in a previous post.
-
Roger, SS. You accept both quotes. I understand.
Stubborn, so you think the quote I gave from the Catechism of the Council of Trent concerning baptism does not call into doubt any solemn teaching of the Church previous to it?
Catechism of the Council of Trent [section on baptism]:
"....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
You do realize that the "unforeseen accident" means death?
You do realize that "grace and righteousness" means sanctifying grace, and that the Church teaches all who die in that state are saved?
-
First off, we all cannot reply instantly ....we reply when we can so "recorded hesitation" means we're not always available to return instant replies.
Second, accident does not mean death, look it up sometime.
Third, "grace and righteousness" is not salvation. Grace and righteousness can be (and quite often is) lost, whereas salvation is forever.
-
Here is the excerpts from the Catechism of the Council of Trent more fully in context...
"On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: she will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
While speaking of adults & baptism, it mentions "the same danger" as in the case of infants, which means "death", and following that very thought the sentence continues, "and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism". This is speaking of death also, not solely because it directly follows the reference to baptism of infants, but also because it says "deprive". Elsewhere it speaks of "delay", but here is says "deprive adults of baptism". That means the adults never receives baptism. This is death.
-
Here is the excerpts from the Catechism of the Council of Trent more fully in context...
"On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: she will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
While speaking of adults & baptism, it mentions "the same danger" as in the case of infants, which means "death", and following that very thought the sentence continues, "and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism". This is speaking of death also, not solely because it directly follows the reference to baptism of infants, but also because it says "deprive". Elsewhere it speaks of "delay", but here is says "deprive adults of baptism". That means the adults never receives baptism. This is death.
My idea of what an "unforeseen accident" is:
1) Dropping dead instantly = no time to desire anything, no time to have repentance of past sins.
2) Dying in your sleep = no time to desire anything, no time to have repentance of past sins.
3) Crossing the street getting killed by a bus = no time to desire anything, no time to have repentance of past sins.
God's idea of what an unforeseen accident is:
1) There is no such thing.
Mat 24:42 Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come. - We do not know, but God knows from all eternity when He will come for us.
24:43 But know this ye, that if the goodman of the house knew at what hour the thief would come, he would certainly watch, and would not suffer his house to be broken open. [44] Wherefore be you also ready, because at what hour you know not the Son of man will come.
This is what the Church has always taught - we must be ready to die at any moment - if we are not ready, we get punished.
We are taught that like a thief in the night, Our Lord will come for us. IOW, when we least expect it. To believe in a desire for salvation is to be a fool IMO. I mean, even saints trembled! (see the last sentence below)
I have a suggestion. Memorize Dies Irae and after understanding this most awesome Lex orandi, see if your lex credendi regarding BOD changes.
We stand accused, guilty before Him.....
What horror must invade the mind
When the approaching Judge shall find
And sift the deeds of all mankind!
Now death and nature with suprise
Behold the trembling sinners rise
To meet the Judge's searching eyes.
For now before the Judge severe
All hidden things must plain appear;
No crime can pass unpunished here.
O what shall I, so guilty plead?
And who for me will intercede?
When even Saints shall comfort need?
-
You completely avoided the fact that it says, "deprive adults of baptism"
As well, you force-fitted "unforeseen accident" to necessarily entail having "no time". Where did you get that from? You mean, if a person crashes in a plane and clings to flotsam for 3 hours before succuмbing to hypothermia and drowns...that is not an unforeseen accident that could deprive a man of baptism?
You are just warping the plain text to mean what you want, like a Protestant does with Scripture. The catechism speaks of death of an adult, deprived of baptism, yet have sanctifying grace.
And, lex orandi, lex credendi? The Church insists by law to offer a Requiem Mass for catechumens who die without baptism after an unforeseen accident. This means the Church officially prays for a soul as if it were in purgatory. Those in purgatory are saved.
-
If a person crashes in a plain, I would think they would be thinking about survival more than "dang! if I only I would have gotten baptized, I sure desire baptism now - oh yes, I must be repentant of all the sins of my past life or I will go to hell..........I , I mean because they offended God". That's just my opinion mind you as regards today's typical human being.
YOU avoid the REAL question, so now, I await YOUR answer............Here is the question:
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN UNFORESEEN ACCIDENT TO GOD?
If yes, please post it and your source.
If no, then please explain where God fits in, in this whole "unforeseen accident" mirage.
-
Stubborn, this question is not over with yet. By your most recent words here you have criticized the Catechism and have thus changed your answer from NO to a YES. Is that right? Or, do you still maintain the Catechism does not go contrary to the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent?
-
Stubborn, this question is not over with yet. By your most recent words here you have criticized the Catechism and have thus changed your answer from NO to a YES. Is that right? Or, do you still maintain the Catechism does not go contrary to the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent?
Your question was: Did the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus teach in opposition to any solemn teaching of the Church previous to them?
I said no, I still say no - the catechism does not teach in opposition to any solemn Church teaching. "Grace and righteousness" is not salvation, justification is not salvation........remember that. The easiest way, IMO to remember that is to remember that grace, justification and righteousness can be lost. Salvation, once attained, cannot be lost.
There is no solemn Church teaching that rewards salvation to unbaptized via BOD. There is not even any solemn Church teaching on BOD.
Answer my question any time.
-
It's as if you immediately forgot what we were just discussing! We were discussing the meaning of the catechism, and it is clear that in its context it means death and that the adult is "deprived" of baptism. Do you see that?
-
Here is the excerpts from the Catechism of the Council of Trent more fully in context...
"On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: she will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
What you *want* the catechism to say and what it actually does say are two different things.
Here is what *you* want it to say:
"On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: she will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should a sudden death deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to eternal salvation."
Again, there is no solemn Church teaching on a "Baptism of Desire". I wish there were, but there isn't.
-
What you *want* the catechism to say and what it actually does say are two different things.
Actually, you are plainly mutilating what it obviously says, as I said, like a Protestant. You criticized the "unforeseen accident", and now backpedal as if we never discussed it. The reference to the death of infants, and saying "deprived of baptism" in one sentence clearly signifies the adult NEVER received the Sacrament of baptism, but did attain the state of grace. It was said "deprived" there for the accident because it meant death. Elsewhere it mentioned "delay". You are clearly in denial about what the catechism clearly means. "Stubborn" is an appropriate moniker for you.
-
What you *want* the catechism to say and what it actually does say are two different things.
Actually, you are plainly mutilating what it obviously says, as I said, like a Protestant. You criticized the "unforeseen accident", and now backpedal as if we never discussed it.
I gave you my opinion of what an "unforeseen accident" is - you gave me your opinion of what one is. What else is there to that?
Holy Mother the Church warns us that *we all* should expect to die unexpectedly - unless you're on death row, all deaths come unexpectedly or accidentally if you will - that is why we all need to *remain in Sanctifying Grace* so that when we do die, we will be ready ----- She does not nor has She ever taught that one does not need to be prepared ahead of time - nor has She ever taught that for whoever is unprepared, their desire for preparation will reward them salvation.
Where does the below teaching leave any wiggle room for those who died only wishing they were prepared?
Commentary from Haydock Bible for Mat 24:42 Watch ye, therefore. That men might not be attentive for a time only, but preserve a continual vigilance, the Almighty conceals from them the hour of their dissolution: they ought therefore to be ever expecting it, and ever watchful. But to the eternal infamy of Christians be it said, much more diligence is used by the worldly wise for the preservation of their wealth, than by the former for the salvation of their immortal souls. Though they are fully aware that the Lord will come, and like a thief in the night, when they least expect him, they do not persevere watching, nor guard against the irreparable misfortune of quitting the present life without previous preparation. Therefore will the day come to the destruction of such as are reposed in sleep. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxviii. on S. Matt.) --- Of what importance is it then that we should be found watching, and properly attentive to the one thing necessary, the salvation of our immortal souls. For what will it avail us, if we have gained the whole world, which we must then leave, and lose our immortal souls, which, owing to our supine neglect to these admonitions of Jesus Christ, must suffer in hell-flames for all eternity? (Haydock)
-
Nonno, I await YOUR answer............Here is the question:
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN UNFORESEEN ACCIDENT TO GOD?
If yes, please post it and your source.
If no, then please explain where God fits in, in this whole "unforeseen accident" mirage.
-
Nonno, I await YOUR answer............Here is the question:
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN UNFORESEEN ACCIDENT TO GOD?
If yes, please post it and your source.
If no, then please explain where God fits in, in this whole "unforeseen accident" mirage.
You just betrayed yourself, Stubborn. I know your answer (and mine) is NO. Which means that you believe an "unforeseen accident" is a mirage (a delusion). So, you are saying the Roman Catechism taught a delusion regarding baptism.
-
I am asking what roll, if any, does God play in the "unforseen accident"?.............far as I can tell, the Author of all events is deemed insignificant to the point of obscurity in the "unforseen accident" consistently.
-
Nonno, I await YOUR answer............Here is the question:
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN UNFORESEEN ACCIDENT TO GOD?
If yes, please post it and your source.
If no, then please explain where God fits in, in this whole "unforeseen accident" mirage.
-
I disagree with Stubborn regarding BoD.
-
You just betrayed yourself, Stubborn. I know your answer (and mine) is NO. Which means that you believe an "unforeseen accident" is a mirage (a delusion). So, you are saying the Roman Catechism taught a delusion regarding baptism.
My answer was right there, "NO". Now, why are you criticizing the catechism for suggesting an "unforeseen accident" that "deprives" a man of baptism?
-
I've identified the second citation:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZSfPpo50c9YC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=augustine+De+Lib.+Arb.&source=bl&ots=QxmdTXmuFF&sig=0bVfkPAq4AUl_NxeBzH0XzsGNlM&hl=en&ei=B18XTuvlBuTKiAKyx-HSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=augustine%20De%20Lib.%20Arb.&f=false
De natura et gratia
I confirmed the source. It's from something called De Migne's "Patroligis Latina," in case you were interested. It helps to actually ask the author of the article if you had any questions. He is happy to answer.
Also, an aside: The SSPX, when citing the opposing view, has actually cited this same source. So, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
-
I'm sure most of you know who Michael Hoffman is. He uses these same references when talking about this issue, and these quotes are from source material.
This one "Aug. de Nat. et grat. 7. 7 is from the saint's work On Nature
and Grace against Pelagius, written in 415. So that was correct.
The others "de Nat. et Orig. an" and the ibid, cited as a reference by
Hoffman, must be from a work of Augustine's On Nature and Original Sin. He is citing Hoffman as the authority, who cites what he has from Saint Augustine, giving these abbreviated Latin references.
Let me know if you need anything else regarding this.
-
You just betrayed yourself, Stubborn. I know your answer (and mine) is NO. Which means that you believe an "unforeseen accident" is a mirage (a delusion). So, you are saying the Roman Catechism taught a delusion regarding baptism.
My answer was right there, "NO". Now, why are you criticizing the catechism for suggesting an "unforeseen accident" that "deprives" a man of baptism?
Perhaps indirectly I am criticizing the catechism - but after all, it is obsolete........it's been revised into extinction umpteen times since it was published and replaced at least as many times - so it's not like I am the only one who ever criticized it - far from it. This fact also serves to prove that catechisms, including Trent's catechism are fallible.
If you read the introduction, Pope St. Pius V even states the fact that the Catechism is not infallible.
You say your answer is "no" - so you believe there is no such thing as an accident with God - unforeseen or otherwise - yet you adhere to those who die "unexpectedly" via the "unforeseen accident" as a support for BOD - interesting.
As I have mentioned in an earlier post, personally - I want to believe in BOD but as of yet, I have not found one single thing in Scripture or Dogma that agrees with BOD.................I have found only teachings contrary to BOD.
Like you and others who adhere to the belief in BOD, I too have found Doctors of the Church and learned theologians - even popes who appear to espouse belief in BOD - but there is not so much as even one mention of BOD in any de fide (binding) Church teachings - only teachings to the contrary. As such, I personally believe BOD needs to be explicitly condemned or defined, infallibly.
As I already posted, Our Lord comes for each and every one of us "like a thief in the night". Our Lord conceals the time of our demise for a reason..........namely, because if we knew when we were going to die, we could/would sin like crazy till our last hour, then run to confession before we die. . . . . . not that that would work - but the theory behind BOD is along the same lines - - - IMO.
Also IMO, BOD = salvation outside the Church. If I am wrong, please prove it using de fide teachings. Those folks who use St. Alphonsus‘ teachings blind themselves to all other teachings of the Church - - - - far as I know, his teachings on morals in his book "Moral Theology" have been declared error free, BUT NOT his teachings on the faith.
If all else fails, consider the Novus Ordo and how error filled it is - - - -one of it's most treasured and defended teachings is salvation via desire.
-
What are the purposes of BOD/BOD if the Sacrament of water Baptism is necessary for salvation?
Council of Trent:
If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ" " Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit: ( John 3:5) are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Here is the definition of Baptism of Desire from the Catholic Concise Encyclopedia saying that BOD is not a Sacrament of Baptism:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for Baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains.
Sorry if this has already been answered: I haven't been following the discussion.
-
What are the purposes of BOD/BOD if the Sacrament of water Baptism is necessary for salvation?
Council of Trent:
If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ" " Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit: ( John 3:5) are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Here is the definition of Baptism of Desire from the Catholic Concise Encyclopedia saying that BOD is not a Sacrament of Baptism:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for Baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains.
Sorry if this has already been answered: I haven't been following the discussion.
It's another extraordinary circuмstance, wherein God may allow you to join his church even when it's not possible to do so formally.
Lets say you are on a boat, the boat shipwrecks. You find a Bible and a Catetchism, you having noone to talk to, read these every day and decide you want to join the catholic church and get salvation but there is no Priest. So you'd make a perfect act of contrition and have a desire to join God's church.
Now splinter this into two further sceneario's. 1: You die, God may allow you into heaven. 2: You are rescued, you are now REQUIRED to be Baptised the ordinary way.
Kinda like General Absolution, it is valid before a Battle for a Priest to give general absolution and everyone make an act of contrition, however those that live still have to go to confession.
-
Bumping for the sake of people that want to continue harping about this issue.
-
Bumping for relevance. This guy has a challenge out there that those of you that like to use the term "feenyite." If you really think you have the proof, go show him and start up a debate with him over email. He answers promptly.
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
-
Bumping for relevance. This guy has a challenge out there that those of you that like to use the term "feenyite." If you really think you have the proof, go show him and start up a debate with him over email. He answers promptly.
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
About Brian Kelly
Brian Kelly has been the editor-in-chief of From the Housetops magazine and Saint Benedict Center’s monthly Mancipia newsletter since January 2006.
Prompted by his valiant mother’s insistence, he first visited Saint Benedict Center in Still River, Massachusetts, in the summer of 1973, where he met Father Feeney and the philosopher who was to be his mentor ever since, Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M.
-
God's will cannot fail. -St. Augustine.
God wills the institution of the sacraments as necessary means of salvation. Obvious.
God wills Man to partake of them. Obvious.
God chooses some to be saved, but not all. Also obvious (COT, Session 6)
Therefore, since God's will cannot fail, he wills the sacraments, and he wills some to be saved, it would seem that all who are saved are to be saved through the sacraments.
For God's will cannot fail. Even in the face of human freedom, it does not fail, for the grace of God is like a victorious delight in the soul; He makes himself beautiful to us so that we will infallibly come to him. I do not say we cannot resist him, we can, we have the ability. But no one whom he has willed to save actually conquers his will; rather, they are willingly conquered by his love and grace.
Please toss stones gently... :jester: