Author Topic: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood  (Read 2102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12434
  • Reputation: +6448/-1028
  • Gender: Male
Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2017, 02:11:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :jumping2:

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-822
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #31 on: September 19, 2017, 02:37:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course, they had to use a formula, and the usually employed either the Latin expression "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus," or its English equivalent, "No salvation outside the Church." Since there is hardly another dogma which has been so constantly reasserted by the Church's magisterium, no Catholic writer could possibly get around the fact that the truth expressed succinctly in this formula was an integral part of Catholic teaching. Most of the men who wrote imperfectly on this subject were at least logical enough not to want to deny some statement which had been set forth explicitly and in an authoritative fashion by the official teachers of the Church. Hence they adopted the expedient of holding the formula itself, and then explaining his formula in such a way as to make it appear to mean quite the opposite of what it says. In their hands the expression "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" became a mere empty or vain formula, since they presented this statement as signifying, in effect, that there really is salvation outside the Church. Fenton 
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #32 on: September 19, 2017, 03:04:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  8)

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-822
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #33 on: September 20, 2017, 07:31:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  Akin to Mathew's tactic and almost as crude is the procedure of writers who speak of "the Catholic doctrines concerning salvation 'outside the Church'." It is obvious that men who teach in this way are denying the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. If they choose to pay some lip service to the formula "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus," that formula, in their hands, becomes vain and meaningless. Fenton 
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #34 on: September 20, 2017, 10:19:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :baby:


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #35 on: September 20, 2017, 10:20:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Akin to Mathew's tactic and almost as crude is the procedure of writers who speak of "the Catholic doctrines concerning salvation 'outside the Church'." It is obvious that men who teach in this way are denying the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. If they choose to pay some lip service to the formula "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus," that formula, in their hands, becomes vain and meaningless. Fenton

    Fenton is the chief among those who reduce EENS to meaningless formula.  LoT takes it to heretical extremes.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #36 on: September 20, 2017, 10:20:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :barf:

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #37 on: September 20, 2017, 10:46:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fenton is the chief among those who reduce EENS to meaningless formula.  LoT takes it to heretical extremes.
    Ladislaus,

    I don't believe Fenton ever weighed in on whether supernatural faith - which he of course concedes is required for salvation - requires belief in the Trinity and Incarnation of Our Lord, for example. I recall him indicating that that is the majority position, and that Suprema Haec leaves such a requirement intact - if it is a requirement according to Fenton, lol.

    So we have Fenton believing that one must be joined to the Church to be saved, and maybe believing that the supernatural faith and charity required necessitates believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation.

    While I agree with you that this presents problems for the "necessity" of the sacraments, I don't think we can say, or have any authority to say, that such a view would "reduce EENS to a meaningless formula." Well, I would disagree with him but not say he reduced the formula to meaninglessness.

    Your thoughts?

    Hopefully we can start some serious discussion of real substance and deflect some Lover of Truth spamming.

    Torn
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #38 on: September 20, 2017, 10:51:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My apologies to AES since my last remarks weren't the topic of this thread. I could start a new thread if AES prefers.
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #39 on: September 20, 2017, 11:05:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't believe Fenton ever weighed in on whether supernatural faith - which he of course concedes is required for salvation - requires belief in the Trinity and Incarnation of Our Lord, for example. I recall him indicating that that is the majority position, and that Suprema Haec leaves such a requirement intact - if it is a requirement according to Fenton, lol.

    Yes, that is correct.  He's of course stretching mightily to interpret Suprema Haec as backing the "majority position".  In fact, LoT, contrary to the thinking of Fenton, cites SH as proof of the two-criterion faith position.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #40 on: September 20, 2017, 11:21:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • While I agree with you that this presents problems for the "necessity" of the sacraments, I don't think we can say, or have any authority to say, that such a view would "reduce EENS to a meaningless formula." Well, I would disagree with him but not say he reduced the formula to meaninglessness.

    Your thoughts?

    Fenton guts the dogma EENS when he starts pushing this notion that one can be "within the Church" without being a member of the Church.  Suddenly, those who do not have membership, even in voto, can be considered "within" the Church and therefore saveable.  See how they start with the premise that non-Catholics can be saved and then argue backwards into the EENS definitions by redefining the word "within"?  Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's, "well, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".  So, for Fenton, whether anyone can be saved except within the Church depends on what one means by the word "within".  This is a complete novelty and was invented precisely to get non-members of the Church SAVED.  So, now, no longer is profession of the Catholic faith required for salvation, no longer is the Sacrament of Baptism required for salvation, no longer is subjection to the Holy Father required for salvation.  So you can be WITHIN the Church without being visibly within the Church ... as set forth in the membership criteria.  So it becomes a free-for-all where pretty much anyone who believes in Jesus and the Holy Trinity can be saved.  Thus Fenton sets the stage.  All someone has to do is reject the "majority opinion" on explicit faith criterion and now anyone who believes in God can be within the Church ... based on Fenton's principles.  So Fenton in priniciple promotes the reduction of EENS to a meaningless formula while ironically deriding those who reduce EENS to a meaningless formula.  Fenton promotes the body-soul distinction of the Church while also condemning the same.  He promotes Suprema Haec while condemning the principles it actually promotes (while pretending that it doesn't actually promote them).  Fenton claims that V2 ecclesiology not only leaves intact but even improves Traditional ecclesiology.  Fenton is the master of intellectual gymnastics performed in order to reconcile contrary principles.

    So what does this do to Tridentine Catholic ecclesiology?  It completely GUTS it and directly sets up Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology.  This is why Fenton declared that V2 ecclesiology was not a departure but even an IMPROVEMENT to Traditional ecclesiology.  It's not because, as LoT claims, that Fenton was an idiot who couldn't read and interpret the theology of Vatican II.  Fenton's ecclesiology = Vatican II ecclesiology, a Frankenchurch in which all manner of non-Catholic exists within the same Church as "card-carrying" Catholics (a disparaging terms used by LoT to deride Tridentine ecclesiology).  On the contrary, Tridentine ecclesiology emphasized that the Church was a VISIBLE society composed by those who met the criteria of membership.  Not so for LoT and Fenton.  They have created the visible-invisible Frankenchurch hybrid that's at the heart of Vatican II.  


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #41 on: September 20, 2017, 11:49:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fenton guts the dogma EENS when he starts pushing this notion that one can be "within the Church" without being a member of the Church.  Suddenly, those who do not have membership, even in voto, can be considered "within" the Church and therefore saveable.  See how they start with the premise that non-Catholics can be saved and then argue backwards into the EENS definitions by redefining the word "within"?  Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's, "well, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".  So, for Fenton, whether anyone can be saved except within the Church depends on what one means by the word "within".  This is a complete novelty and was invented precisely to get non-members of the Church SAVED.  So, now, no longer is profession of the Catholic faith required for salvation, no longer is the Sacrament of Baptism required for salvation, no longer is subjection to the Holy Father required for salvation.  So you can be WITHIN the Church without being visibly within the Church ... as set forth in the membership criteria.  So it becomes a free-for-all where pretty much anyone who believes in Jesus and the Holy Trinity can be saved.  Thus Fenton sets the stage.  All someone has to do is reject the "majority opinion" on explicit faith criterion and now anyone who believes in God can be within the Church ... based on Fenton's principles.  So Fenton in priniciple promotes the reduction of EENS to a meaningless formula while ironically deriding those who reduce EENS to a meaningless formula.  Fenton promotes the body-soul distinction of the Church while also condemning the same.  He promotes Suprema Haec while condemning the principles it actually promotes (while pretending that it doesn't actually promote them).  Fenton claims that V2 ecclesiology not only leaves intact but even improves Traditional ecclesiology.  Fenton is the master of intellectual gymnastics performed in order to reconcile contrary principles.

    So what does this do to Tridentine Catholic ecclesiology?  It completely GUTS it and directly sets up Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology.  This is why Fenton declared that V2 ecclesiology was not a departure but even an IMPROVEMENT to Traditional ecclesiology.  It's not because, as LoT claims, that Fenton was an idiot who couldn't read and interpret the theology of Vatican II.  Fenton's ecclesiology = Vatican II ecclesiology, a Frankenchurch in which all manner of non-Catholic exists within the same Church as "card-carrying" Catholics (a disparaging terms used by LoT to deride Tridentine ecclesiology).  On the contrary, Tridentine ecclesiology emphasized that the Church was a VISIBLE society composed by those who met the criteria of membership.  Not so for LoT and Fenton.  They have created the visible-invisible Frankenchurch hybrid that's at the heart of Vatican II.  
    Excellent analysis.

    And so we are left with hundreds of years of commentators and theologians, some doctors (St. Alphonsus, for example), opining that it may indeed be possible to be joined to the Church without an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism that would, as you have noted, indicate a type of imperfect membership that at least is defensible and makes some sense.

    This is the problem we have. And Lover of Truth seizes on it. He fails to recognize that nowhere does the ordinary, universal magisterium adopt such a view - I challenge him to show even the authentic magisterium supporting that view. We have a local catechism approves by Pius XI indicating BOD may be "implicit," without elaboration. Arguably supporting LoT's position . . . but only arguably and not definitive.

    Trent can be read as indicating a desire being sufficient for justification, without touching the explicit/implicit issue, and we know what the Roman Catechism of Trent says - referring to the desire of a catechumen (an explicit desire) possibly availing to justification.

    We have Pius XII in his allocution to midwives saying that infants do not have available to them a act of love and need baptism - which also doesn't elaborate and hence doesn't endorse LoT's view - an "act of love" would be consistent, for example, with the catechumen referenced in the Roman Catechism.

    We have the statements of Pius IX in his encyclicals which talk about no one being damned for invincible ignorance of the Catholic faith and that those striving to obey God by the natural law and "if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life" "can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace" (Quanto conficiamur moerore) - which can simply be read in accordance with St. Thomas that such would receive divine inspiration as to those things necessary to be believed for salvation, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation.

    Of course, I am putting the HOL aside at this point for reasons that have been discussed here.

    LoT simply doesn't get that a view that one may be justified by having the minimums of the Catholic faith and an explicit desire for baptism doesn't violate any of these magisterial statements, except perhaps Piux X's approved catechism for Italy, which falsely asserts that one may have BOD while "separated from the body of the Church" and hardly can be read as definitive on this issue.

    LoT doesn't get that no Catholic engages in "heresy" or even a lesser sin or crime by simply disagreeing with his and commentator/theologians STRETCHED readings of these magisterial statements. Yet he'll persist.

    Thanks for your thoughts. And now the spamming will begin again, with no attempt by LoT to engage real discussion on these points.
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-822
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #42 on: September 20, 2017, 01:06:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • (4) By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church's necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the "body" and the "soul" of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the "body" of the Church and applied the term "soul of the Church" either to grace and the supernatural virtues or to some fancied "invisible Church." Prior to the appearance of the encyclical Mystici Corporis there were several books and articles claiming that, while the "soul" of the Church was in some way not separated from the "body," it was actually more extensive than this "body." Fenton
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #43 on: September 20, 2017, 02:08:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :clown:

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8480
    • Reputation: +1089/-822
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #44 on: September 20, 2017, 02:24:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • (5) There were many other inadequate explanations of this dogma current before the appearance of the Mystici Corporis and of the Suprema haec sacra. Some writers tried to restrict the meaning of the Church's necessity for salvation to the fact that the gifts of grace whereby a man actually achieves salvation really belong to the Church. Others tried to make it appear that the visible Church itself was necessary for salvation only with the necessity of precept. Still others represented the attainment of salvation within the true Church as the "ideal" willed by God, but imagined that this salvation could be obtained elsewhere and otherwise in special circumstances. Fenton 
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16