Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Cryptinox on September 16, 2021, 01:43:29 PM
-
I found the condemnation of the "Rewarder God" theory from the Holy Office Lad has mentioned. Here it is. I hope you guys can convince salvation for non Catholic people with this.
Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:
Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this passage of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder' [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.”
-
Good to know, but this is not a refutation of what is actually held by BOD/BOB proponents.
This tells a Minister what HE must do before giving Water Baptism. He cannot stop short with the basic idea of God and His goodness and pour.
This does not say what God must do, or not do, in enlightening a soul with His grace or granting the grace of Justification, or Salvation in either Testament.
Of course a minister must teach, govern and sanctify properly in all circuмstances. Such a basic concept of God and His Goodness is the least that an uninstructed pagan must arrive at to qualify for BOD. He must have at least that much of a concept, and the Grace to believe it, and intent to live accordingly.
-
Good to know, but this is not a refutation of what is actually held by BOD/BOB proponents.
This tells a Minister what HE must do before giving Water Baptism. He cannot stop short with the basic idea of God and His goodness and pour.
This does not say what God must do, or not do, in enlightening a soul with His grace or granting the grace of Justification, or Salvation in either Testament.
Of course a minister must teach, govern and sanctify properly in all circuмstances. Such a basic concept of God and His Goodness is the least that an uninstructed pagan must arrive at to qualify for BOD. He must have at least that much of a concept, and the Grace to believe it, and intent to live accordingly.
What you write qualifies practically every person with the exclusion of the Orient which is by and large explicitly atheistic. I'm sure you would say a Jew who purports to follow the "Noahide Laws" and "One God" has a "basic concept of God and His goodness." Which therefore means, practically all Jews are saved. Please someone explain to me how this is not the pinnacle of modern heresy to you people?
-
Good to know, but this is not a refutation of what is actually held by BOD/BOB proponents.
This tells a Minister what HE must do before giving Water Baptism. He cannot stop short with the basic idea of God and His goodness and pour.
This does not say what God must do, or not do, in enlightening a soul with His grace or granting the grace of Justification, or Salvation in either Testament.
Of course a minister must teach, govern and sanctify properly in all circuмstances. Such a basic concept of God and His Goodness is the least that an uninstructed pagan must arrive at to qualify for BOD. He must have at least that much of a concept, and the Grace to believe it, and intent to live accordingly.
You're (deliberately?) ignoring the part in there where the Holy Office declares belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to be necessary by necessity of means (for supernatural faith). That's the exact language being used in this debate among theologians.
Yes, this is a practical directive ... but it gives an explanation for the theological reason behind it. Basically, it's saying that Rewarder God theory cannot even be entertained as a POSSIBILITY in the practical order.
So this is even a stronger statement that one might imagine. Normally one may confer Baptism on a dying person in a doubtful scenario, if you think there's SOME chance that the person has the right dispositions. So, for, instance, if there's a dying unconscious person, the priest typically asks, did the person give ANY sign before going unconscious of possibly wanting to be baptized? There needn't be absolutely certainty of the right disposition, but there needs to be some indicator. In other words, even in a doubtful scenario, so long as there's some possibility, the person may be baptized. Here, this directive is tantamount to saying, "there's no chance that this suffices for supernatural faith" so you can't even baptize such a person in danger of death.
-
This passage concerns those who may receive water baptism from a priest.
It says nothing regarding whether those who die without water baptism can die implicitly baptized by desire.
The excerpt is irrelevant to the debate.
-
This passage concerns those who may receive water baptism from a priest.
It says nothing regarding whether those who die without water baptism can die implicitly baptized by desire.
The excerpt is irrelevant to the debate.
:facepalm:
Uhm, no, it's not. Would you take a look at the actual thread title, Sean? This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. It's about whether someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Most theologians have held that this explicit faith is required for salvation, including St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus.
In other words, prescinding from the question of BoD, is a person even a candidate for BoD, i.e. is the person capable of having supernatural faith, without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?
So, you have it exactly backwards. It's Baptism of Desire which is irrelevant to this particular thread.
-
This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. It's about whether someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
This statement is self-contradictory:
Those baptized implicitly by definition will not have explicit faith.
-
This statement is self-contradictory:
Those baptized implicitly by definition will not have explicit faith.
You're confusing implicit desire with implicit faith ... a common problem that I once dedicated an entire thread to.
-
You're confusing implicit desire with implicit faith ... a common problem that I once dedicated an entire thread to.
No, it is you who are conflating the two, when you allege BOD is impossible without EXPLICIT FAITH.
-
No, it is you who are conflating the two, when you allege BOD is impossible without EXPLICIT FAITH.
:facepalm: That is not a conflation. BoD is impossible without supernatural faith ... as all agree. Question here is whether supernatural faith is possible without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
This is not something I am alleging. This is the position of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus ... which finds support in this citation from the Holy Office.
You've got everything exactly reversed and are begging the question.
You throw out the term "implicit Baptism of Desire" and imply that it's the same thing as implicit faith ... when they are two separate and distinct issues. I'm a bit surprised at your lack of basic logic when you spent some time at STAS.
-
You're confusing implicit desire with implicit faith ... a common problem that I once dedicated an entire thread to.
and I mentioned it in practically every thread on "BOD". In fact, it is now my first question to any person that starts a thread on BOD. Someone started a thread a few days ago, and the first reply came from me, see below, and it ended the thread. They never answer, they just go away.
What baptism of desire are you precisely talking about, what BOD do you believe in?:
- the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Example - A catechumen on his way to be baptized gets run over by a chariot.
Or
- the BOD of the "holy" Orthodox Jew with 12 children who lives according to his conscience and his belief in a God that rewards.
Which one are you defending here Sean?
-
Those baptized implicitly by definition will not have explicit faith.
Utterly ridiculous.
A: Implicit Baptism of Desire: I'm some flavor of Prot who believes in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but I don't believe in Baptism, much less have a desire to receive it.
B: Implicit Faith: I'm a Jew who believes in a Rewarder God but don't believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. But by virtue of my desire to believe all that God has revealed, I implicitly believe in the Holy Trinity.
So if you attributed a Baptism of Desire to person A, then that person has explicit faith but implicit desire for Baptism.
-
:facepalm: That is not a conflation. BoD is impossible without supernatural faith ... as all agree. Question here is whether supernatural faith is possible without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
This is not something I am alleging. This is the position of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus ... which finds support in this citation from the Holy Office.
You've got everything exactly reversed and are begging the question.
You throw out the term "implicit Baptism of Desire" and imply that it's the same thing as implicit faith ... when they are two separate and distinct issues. I'm a bit surprised at your lack of basic logic when you spent some time at STAS.
No, it is you who have it all backwards, when you inextricably link implicit BOD to explicit faith.
As for the naval gazing about what constitutes supernatural faith, by definition, it would be explicit faith in any revealed dogma (e.g., the resurrection), of which a man could not believe in without the actual grace of faith, precisely because such beliefs transcend nature/reason (hence super/above nature).
-
and I mentioned it in practically every thread on "BOD". In fact, it is now my first question to any person that starts a thread on BOD. Someone started a thread a few days ago, and the first reply came from me, see below, and it ended the thread. They never answer, they just go away.
What baptism of desire are you precisely talking about, what BOD do you believe in?:
- the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Example - A catechumen on his way to be baptized gets run over by a chariot.
Or
- the BOD of the "holy" Orthodox Jew with 12 children who lives according to his conscience and his belief in a God that rewards.
Which one are you defending here Sean?
(https://i.imgur.com/vXxQjzX.png)
-
Sean, stop derailing this thread.
This thread is about the question of whether people who don't believe explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity can have supernatural faith.
While it has implications for BoD, these are not to be conflated.
Depending on the answer to this question, all that's at issue is the extent of BoD, whether it can apply to any infidel who believes in God or only to those who believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. That's what Last Trad is pointing out.
You beg the question by assuming there's an implicit BoD and then conflate it with implicit faith. St. Alphonsus, for instance, believed in an implicit BoD, but not an implicit faith (i.e. believed that explicit faith was required for implicit BoD). That example alone suffices to expose your conflation of the issues.
Very few concepts, if any, have done more damage to theology, and opened the door to Modernism, than this notion of implicit.
Explicit BoD: I am a catechumen who believes in all that the Church teaches, and I want to become a Catholic, and I desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Implicit BoD 1: I am a catechumen who believes in all that the Church teaches, and I want to become a Catholic. I don't explicitly think, "I wish to receive the Sacrament of Baptism." Here the desire for Baptism is implicit in wanting to become a Catholic (since Baptism is the way to do it).
Implicit BoD 2: I believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, and I desire to do whatever they ask of me. I don't know about the Catholic Church. Here there's an implicit desire to become Catholic, and therefore an implicit desire to be baptized. This is one step removed from the one above.
Implicit BoD 3: I am a Jew or Muslim who believes in God, or even some animist in the jungles of Africa, and I desire to do whatever God wants. So that means I implicitly desire to convert and believe in Jesus and the Holy Trinity. So this is exactly one more step removed from the one above.
Implications of this issue are only for scenario #3 above. St. Thomas,, St. Thomas, and -- according to Msgr. Fenton -- the majority of theologians (even in his day) reject scenario #3, stating that one cannot have supernatural faith without a bare minimum of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
-
Which one are you defending here Sean?
(https://i.imgur.com/vXxQjzX.png)
There are two levels of cognitive dissonance that most BoD diehards hold so it is hard for them to resolve. They either take the first horn of the dilemma and admit it's Pelagian or deny it's Pelagian and push the dilemma back one step and have to ask if +ABL's formulation (or whatever theologian they defer to) is Pelagian or not. They can keep this recursion going so they never have to talk about Pelagianism.
-
I just as soon have another flat earth discussion, than compete with the demonic stamina of the Feeneyites.
-
and I mentioned it in practically every thread on "BOD". In fact, it is now my first question to any person that starts a thread on BOD. Someone started a thread a few days ago, and the first reply came from me, see below, and it ended the thread. They never answer, they just go away.
Which one are you defending here Sean?
Aaaand he's outta here...another one bites the dust......
I just as soon have another flat earth discussion, than compete with the demonic stamina of the Feeneyites.
-
:facepalm:
Uhm, no, it's not. Would you take a look at the actual thread title, Sean? This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. It's about whether someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. Most theologians have held that this explicit faith is required for salvation, including St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus.
In other words, prescinding from the question of BoD, is a person even a candidate for BoD, i.e. is the person capable of having supernatural faith, without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?
So, you have it exactly backwards. It's Baptism of Desire which is irrelevant to this particular thread.
Spot on! Thank you! And as you know, I do believe in BOD.
-
Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:
Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this passage of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder' [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.”
Yes, well, I believe the Holy Office condemned heliocentrism as heresy.
How'd that work out?
-
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
The Council of Trent, in its decree on justification, is very clear that one must be properly disposed in order to be justified. This would apply to both baptism and BOD.
.
Prior to the above canon, Trent explains what it means to be properly disposed:
.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when,
.
1. [Belief in Christ and the Trinity and knowledge of baptism] excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised, -and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
.
2. [contrition for sins] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism:
.
3. [vow/promise to receive baptism and amendment of life] lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
Comment: Notice that the underlined text above, about God being a "rewarder" to them that seek Him, that sounds awfully similar to the modernist heresy of the "rewarder God". It seems the modernists pulled out this phrase from Trent and tried to explain how "implicit faith" can save. But they ignore all of the other conditions, and the proper disposition required, in order for one to be justified. Salvation by a "rewarder God", when ignoring all the other requirements, makes a mockery of the Catholic Faith.