Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bowler on March 01, 2013, 09:24:55 AM
-
- Salvation by Baptism of desire of the catechumen?
- Salvation by Explicit Baptism of desire of those who are not yet catechumens but desire to be Catholics?
- Salvation by Implicit baptism of desire of those who are not yet catechumens and desire to be Catholics, but do not know that they have to be baptized?
-Salvation by Implicit faith for those invincible ignorant of the need to belong to the Catholic, who however have a desire and longing for a God that rewards?
.
I have never held the bottom, implicit faith, neither did Pope Pius XII, no matter how you twist his and my reasonings!! Never. Do you hear that? NEVER!! I have always believed one must at least believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, even with implicit desire, which was also described by Pope Pius XII. Ignoring that the "unconscious desire and longing" must have supernatural faith and charity equals implicit desire is a frank showing of your lack of logic.
The 1949 letter (which was published in 1952 after the writer had died) is full of holes, however, I have NEVER read of anyone claiming that is is not teaching implicit faith, as you claim.
The 1949 letter (which was published in 1952 after the writer had died) is describing implicit faith to a tea, it does not say that "one must at least believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation", it just says "but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God".
and "It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
I don't want to hear your personal opinions, just quote authorities who say that the 1949 letter (which was published in 1952 after the writer had died) does not teach implicit faith, that the person described in the letter "must at least believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation"? If not then you are just expressing your own personal opnion.
-
LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.
Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
-
:rolleyes: No, that is only your interpretation. The docuмent simply doesn't go into the nature of supernatural faith, but leaves it undecided. "Being conformed to the will of God," IMHO, includes accepting whatever explicit doctrines God would have revealed to the person having implicit desire; or do you exclude that from your interpretation, so that you can avoid this decision of the Pope? As I said, you're reading your own interpretation into the letter.
-
I have never read any Catholic writer that claimed what you are saying. You are the one that made the comment that it does not teach implicit faith of the School of Samanaca, so prove it from authoritative sources.
I am all ears/eyes.
-
I believe you are the one to need to prove Pope Pius XII in this 1949 Letter approved of implicit faith, since Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter. I haven't heard from anyone but you that this letter approves of implicit faith. I am all eyes and ears about how supernatural faith can be all implicit, according to what you claim the 1949 letter says.
-
I believe you are the one to need to prove Pope Pius XII in this 1949 Letter approved of implicit faith, since Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter. I haven't heard from anyone but you that this letter approves of implicit faith. I am all eyes and ears about how supernatural faith can be all implicit, according to what you claim the 1949 letter says.
Then post the quotes from Fr. Rulleau that say that he is opposed to implicit faith, that "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine". I just looked at the book (AGAIN), and he has a whole section on just Implicit faith, where he quotes from the School of Salamanca, which is opposed to the idea of the need for an explicit faith in the Incarntion and Trinity. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau say that he is opposed to implicit faith. Moreover, the SSPX teaches the same implicit faith in their seminaries, would you like to see the quotes again from Bp. Fellay and others?
By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?
-
I believe you are the one to need to prove Pope Pius XII in this 1949 Letter approved of implicit faith, since Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter. I haven't heard from anyone but you that this letter approves of implicit faith. I am all eyes and ears about how supernatural faith can be all implicit, according to what you claim the 1949 letter says.
Then post the quotes from Fr. Rulleau that say that he is opposed to implicit faith, that "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine". I just looked at the book (AGAIN), and he has a whole section on just Implicit faith, where he quotes from the School of Salamanca, which is opposed to the idea of the need for an explicit faith in the Incarntion and Trinity. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau say that he is opposed to implicit faith. Moreover, the SSPX teaches the same implicit faith in their seminaries, would you like to see the quotes again from Bp. Fellay and others?
By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?
I personally agree in belief in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but it hasn't been decided by the Church; that is why I am careful to say "some revealed doctrine." As for Fr. Rulleau, he posts objections to the implicit faith hypothesis (probably fatal, but again not decided), leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side.
-
I believe you are the one to need to prove Pope Pius XII in this 1949 Letter approved of implicit faith, since Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter. I haven't heard from anyone but you that this letter approves of implicit faith. I am all eyes and ears about how supernatural faith can be all implicit, according to what you claim the 1949 letter says.
Then post the quotes from Fr. Rulleau that say that he is opposed to implicit faith, that "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine". I just looked at the book (AGAIN), and he has a whole section on just Implicit faith, where he quotes from the School of Salamanca, which is opposed to the idea of the need for an explicit faith in the Incarntion and Trinity. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau say that he is opposed to implicit faith. Moreover, the SSPX teaches the same implicit faith in their seminaries, would you like to see the quotes again from Bp. Fellay and others?
By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?
I personally agree in belief in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but it hasn't been decided by the Church; that is why I am careful to say "some revealed doctrine." As for Fr. Rulleau, he posts objections to the implicit faith hypothesis (probably fatal, but again not decided), leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side.
" leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side"?
Again, you posted nothing from Fr. Rulleau, so your comment that "Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter", is again just your opinion. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau personal object to the teaching of Implicit desire in his book. If the teaching is not taught in the 1949/1952 letter, he would not have taught implicit faith in his book, he would have said that was rejected by the letter, the same as he said about Fr. Feeney.
The SSPX teaches implicit faith and uses the 1949 letter, eveyone that defends implict faith uses the 1949 letter.
-
" leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side"?
Again, you posted nothing from Fr. Rulleau, so your comment that "Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter", is again just your opinion. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau teach against Implicit desire in his book.
You mean "implicit faith," and even if Fr Rulleau didn't teach against it (I admit I was wrong on that; he did put objections, but then answered them), the Church hasn't decided one way or the other; by Pope Pius XII, She had decided that the implicit desire must be accompanied by supernatural faith and charity, leaving theologians still free to discuss the details. Fr. Rulleau also said the implicit faith still has a difficulty about the supernatural faith still required to make implicit desire effective. This is one area in which theologians are still allowed discussion and debate, since it may be clear to you and me, but not to other people.
If you want to see Msgr. Fenton, go read The Catholic Church and Salvation, if you have it. I don't have time enough to search the exact page or OCR the page to put it here for now. I might later.
-
By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?
I personally agree in belief in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but it hasn't been decided by the Church; that is why I am careful to say "some revealed doctrine." As for Fr. Rulleau, he posts objections to the implicit faith hypothesis (probably fatal, but again not decided), leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side.
You say that personally you believe that at a minimum one must believe in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but that you write "some revealed doctrine" because the Church has not decided.
I'm confused by what you write, because The School of Salamanca's Implicit faith theory has no revealed doctrine that must be believed, and the School of St. Thomas (Thomists) says the two revealed doctrines that must be believed, therefore, are you saying that the Church does not teach Implicit Faith since some revealed doctrine must be believed?
-
You say that personally you believe that at a minimum one must believe in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but that you write "some revealed doctrine" because the Church has not decided.
I'm confused by what you write, because The School of Salamanca's Implicit faith theory has no revealed doctrine that must be believed, and the School of St. Thomas (Thomists) says the two revealed doctrines that must be believed, therefore, are you saying that the Church does not teach Implicit Faith since some revealed doctrine must be believed?
You know what? That is really a good question. For myself, I believe that even in the matter of so-called implicit faith, there must be some explicit belief that warrants it to be called supernatural faith, though I do not hold to the implicit faith idea. As I said, I believe in the Thomist school of at least belief in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but cannot bring myself to condemn the implicit faith adherents until they are condemned, because I think they concur with the need for supernatural faith and charity. I really pray the Church will clarify this once and for all in the restoration. Until then, I'll leave it where it should be, to good orthodox theologians to debate it.
-
The reason that I started this thread was because you said that the 1949/1952 does not teach implicit faith, and this thread I hope has proven to you that it does teach it. Here is material from Fr. Fenton in his defending of the 1949/1952 letter where he teaches implicit faith and explains that the "teachings" of are what the School of Salamanca calls the minimum "doctrines" which must be believed:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 69: “The divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements. It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained or implied in other doctrines. But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and within which theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly and explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation.”
In his defense of 1949/1952 letter pg103-104 he says that unconscious or implicit desire can put one mysteriously inside the Church only if the person has supernatural Faith. So, once one sees what Fenton believes is the minimum requirement for supernatural Faith, that is precisely what he thinks a person must minimally and absolutely know and believe to be “inside” the Church without being a member.
Fenton begins by correctly stating that divine Faith can exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some truths of the Catholic Faith. That is absolutely true: a Catholic doesn’t have to know or be aware of every Catholic teaching to have the Catholic Faith, but he cannot reject any of them. Fenton then correctly notes that in order to have supernatural Faith, a person must distinctly grasp and know certain truths. This is also true; there are certain mysteries of Faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect. An adult cannot be ignorant of them and be saved.
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
What are these minimum truths that an adult must know to be saved? The Church has always taught, as the Athanasian Creed infallibly defined, that knowing the Trinity and the Incarnation is a necessity of means in order to be saved. That is why missionaries risked everything to go and preach the Gospel to heathen in far off lands. An adult who doesn’t know the Trinity and the Incarnation cannot be saved, for these mysteries constitute “the Catholic Faith” if broken down and defined in terms of its simplest mysteries.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the St. Thomas and the Thomist who believed in baptism of desire only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.
However, notice that Msgr. Fenton says:
Fenton, p. 69: “But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and within which theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly and explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing , the existence of God as Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation.”
Fenton list four things: 1) that God is the Head of the supernatural order; 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil; 3) the Trinity; 4) the Incarnation.
Here’s the key: while listing these four things, Fenton says that a person only has to know two of these things in order to have true supernatural Faith, and be eligible for the “implicit” desire that puts you inside the Catholic Church! That is to say, according to Msgr. Fenton, a person can have “supernatural Faith” and be inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by his “implicit desire” when he only believes that 1) God exists and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil, without knowing the Trinity and Incarnation! .
Fenton interpreting and using the 1949/1952 letter, says it does not hold that it is necessary to know the Trinity and the Incarnation for salvation. Fenton’s position does not exclude Jews and Muslims from salvation, for they believe in two out of the four. Jews and Muslims believe 1) that God is the Head of the supernatural order; and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil. Fenton’s position is totally heretical and reduces the dogma to a meaningless formula.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 87: “The non-members of the Church who have no explicit intention of joining or entering it can have the life of grace, but only if they are ordered or disposed toward the Church by a certain unconscious intention or desire.”
“A certain unconscious intention or desire,” Fenton teaches, as long as it is accompanied by belief in two of the four things – e.g. belief in God and that He is a rewarder and a punisher – is sufficient to put the person inside the Catholic Church (without being a member). So, as long as the Jew or Muslim is “invincibly ignorant” and believes that God is the Head of the supernatural order and that He rewards good and punishes evil, he can be inside the Church and be saved. The “unconscious intention” the Jew or Muslim has for the Church, even though he doesn’t believe in Our Lord, can grant him supernatural “Faith” which, when combined with his “implicit desire,” puts him inside the Catholic Church.
Therefore, both Fr. Rulleau and Fr. Fenton teach and defend the theory of implicit faith, and use the 1949/1952 letter to teach it.
-
. . .a person can have “supernatural Faith” and be inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by his “implicit desire” when he only believes that 1) God exists and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil, without knowing the Trinity and Incarnation! [/b] [/size].
My question is this. Can you name a single traditional Catholic priest today who does not agree with Msgr. Fenton? Can you name more than one? If you can, please do.
I think that the official positions of the SSPX and CMRI and SSPV agree with Msgr. Fenton. I don't know about the other traditional Catholic groups or independent priests.
-
I don't think it is fair to call Msgr. Fenton an adherent of "implicit faith." The reason why he says what he does, is, IMHO, because the Church has not touched the question about what doctrines must be believed in a person having implicit desire. He doesn't do anymore than just say what the Church says: one must have supernatural faith and charity to have implicit desire become efficacious. He doesn't say what he believes; he only says what Catholic theology allows to be believed. I repeat: he doesn't go into which two, since it is still an unsettled question.
-
And I don't agree Msgr. Fenton would say Jews and Muslims are saved just because you make him say only believing in God and rewarding good and punishing evil is enough for supernatural faith; unless they believe correctly and renounce the errors they believe vincibly, they will not be saved. That is a stretch to make Msgr. Fenton say all Jews and Muslims are saved just because of their 2 beliefs! It seems to me that you're filling in in the blanks of Msgr. Fenton's beliefs, even though he doesn't go into what he personally believes.
p. 41: The docuмent [Cantate Domino] insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined ... to tge one true Church.
-
. . .a person can have “supernatural Faith” and be inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by his “implicit desire” when he only believes that 1) God exists and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil, without knowing the Trinity and Incarnation! [/b] [/size].
My question is this. Can you name a single traditional Catholic priest today who does not agree with Msgr. Fenton? Can you name more than one? If you can, please do.
I think that the official positions of the SSPX and CMRI and SSPV agree with Msgr. Fenton. I don't know about the other traditional Catholic groups or independent priests.
I'm sure there are many traditionalists and even Novus Ordo (SSPX and whatever) priests that disagree with Fenton on the theory of Implicit faith.
Any defender of explicit baptism of desire who uses St. Thomas to give authority to their position, but then goes against St. Thomas by believing in the Implicit Faith theory, is not a real Thomist, and is just a hypocrite.
I believe there are many real Thomists priests who do not agree with Fenton on this point of Implicit Faith. The problem is that the false-Thomists and the Salamances rule the roost (occupy the positions of power, of promotions), and the "Feeneyites" are the whipping boys of the the traditionalists priests that want to get anywhere.
There are also traditionalist priests who hold to the strict EENS, that only a sacramentally baptized member can be saved. Fr. Waltham and Fr. Hector Bolduc were two big ones in the trad movement. I'm sure others might name more.
My point is that if the true Thomists priests would come out and teach that Implicit faith is a novelty which has no tradition behind it, indeed is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and was never taught by any saint. Most importantly, it opened the door to Vatican II era indifferentism with regard to the necessity of Church membership to be saved. If true Thomists would spend their time writing against the giant beast of implicit faith, and leave alone the gnat of "Feeneyism", they would really cause a change. Instead they keep quiet and even write against the "Feenyites" , in order to curry favor with their superiors.
-
Sorry, bowler, but you are picking and choosing Msgr. Fenton. I've already quoted him using Cantate Domino. As I said, you're only reading into your own interpretation of what Msgr. Fenton says, instead of looking at the book as a whole.
-
I don't think it is fair to call Msgr. Fenton an adherent of "implicit faith." The reason why he says what he does, is, IMHO, because the Church has not touched the question about what doctrines must be believed in a person having implicit desire. He doesn't do anymore than just say what the Church says: one must have supernatural faith and charity to have implicit desire become efficacious. He doesn't say what he believes; he only says what Catholic theology allows to be believed. I repeat: he doesn't go into which two, since it is still an unsettled question.
And I don't agree Msgr. Fenton would say Jews and Muslims are saved just because you make him say only believing in God and rewarding good and punishing evil is enough for supernatural faith; unless they believe correctly and renounce the errors they believe vincibly, they will not be saved. That is a stretch to make Msgr. Fenton say all Jews and Muslims are saved just because of their 2 beliefs! It seems to me that you're filling in in the blanks of Msgr. Fenton's beliefs, even though he doesn't go into what he personally believes.
p. 41: The docuмent [Cantate Domino] insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined ... to tge one true Church.
Again, it is just your specualtion against what both Rulleau and Fenton actually wrote. Nowhere do either one say that they disagree with the theory of implict faith.
-
There are also traditionalist priests who hold to the strict EENS, that only a sacramentally baptized member can be saved. Fr. Waltham and Fr. Hector Bolduc were two big ones in the trad movement. I'm sure others might name more.
Thank you. I am interested in this because I also do not believe in Baptism of Desire, though I do not call those who do believe in it heretics. I did not know of any traditional priests who agree with me although some non-priests like the people at MHFM and others like David Landry who used to post here as CM also deny BOD.
I will look for information about these two priests on the internet.
-
Sorry, bowler, but you are picking and choosing Msgr. Fenton. I've already quoted him using Cantate Domino. As I said, you're only reading into your own interpretation of what Msgr. Fenton says, instead of looking at the book as a whole.
I posted what he wrote himself. You have posted nothing.
-
And I don't agree Msgr. Fenton would say Jews and Muslims are saved just because you make him say only believing in God and rewarding good and punishing evil is enough for supernatural faith; unless they believe correctly and renounce the errors they believe vincibly, they will not be saved.
I posted his own words explaining it clearly, he says it is enough for supernatural faith. what more can I do? If his own words can't convince you, then nothing will.
That is a stretch to make Msgr. Fenton say all Jews and Muslims are saved just because of their 2 beliefs! It seems to me that you're filling in in the blanks of Msgr. Fenton's beliefs, even though he doesn't go into what he personally believes.
I went back and did a word search and there is no comment of mine saying that "all Jews and Muslims are saved just because of their 2 beliefs". This is why I always ask that people quote me. I said no such thing, neither did Fenton.
It seems to me that you're filling in in the blanks of Msgr. Fenton's beliefs, even though he doesn't go into what he personally believes.
If I teach Implicit faith in every detail when I'm explaining the 1949/1952 letter, and I don't EVER in any writing say that I'm opposed to the fallible theory (which has no root in tradition or any teaching of a saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian creed, and is in no catechism prior to the 20th century etc etc), then either I believe in that theory or I'm a hypocrete currying favor with my superiors. Take your pick.
-
You posted his own words and then interpreted that the two beliefs must be belief in God as head of the Supernatural order, and as a rewarder of good and punisher of evil. That's all you did. You can't say that Msgr. Fenton directly stated that these are the two conditions because he didn't, no matter how much you believe he did.
-
There are also traditionalist priests who hold to the strict EENS, that only a sacramentally baptized member can be saved. Fr. Waltham and Fr. Hector Bolduc were two big ones in the trad movement. I'm sure others might name more.
Thank you. I am interested in this because I also do not believe in Baptism of Desire, though I do not call those who do believe in it heretics. I did not know of any traditional priests who agree with me although some non-priests like the people at MHFM and others like David Landry who used to post here as CM also deny BOD.
I will look for information about these two priests on the internet.
I would not limit your search to just finding trad priests who don't believe in baptism of desire, if you can find a real Thomist (who of course is opposed to Implicit Faith and invincible ignorance) you will be way ahead. This might make your search easier.
Even if one were to concede that the Catechism of Trent (COT) teaches that one can be saved without being baptized, the COT is only teaching the theory of explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, which is not the problem today (and never has been the problem), as today 99% BODers believe that a non-Catholic can be saved with no explicit desire to be a Catholic.
-
You posted his own words and then interpreted that the two beliefs must be belief in God as head of the Supernatural order, and as a rewarder of good and punisher of evil. That's all you did. You can't say that Msgr. Fenton directly stated that these are the two conditions because he didn't, no matter how much you believe he did.
If I teach Implicit faith in every detail when I'm explaining the 1949/1952 letter, and I don't EVER in any writing say that I'm opposed to the fallible theory (which has no root in tradition or any teaching of a saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian creed, and is in no catechism prior to the 20th century etc etc), then either I believe in that theory or I'm a hypocrete currying favor with my superiors. Take your pick.
-
Again, it is just your specualtion against what both Rulleau and Fenton actually wrote. Nowhere do either one say that they disagree with the theory of implict faith.
I posted p. 41 of Msgr. Fenton's book, concerning Cantate Domino. Are you going to dismiss that? And I didn't even bring up Fr. Rulleau: I conceded that point already. But Msgr. Fenton didn't say which 2 of the 4 beliefs were necessary for salvation. That is only your interpretation. If he didn't disagree with implicit faith, Msgr. Fenton neither explicitly confirmed it despite what you say.
-
Again, it is just your specualtion against what both Rulleau and Fenton actually wrote. Nowhere do either one say that they disagree with the theory of implict faith.
I posted p. 41 of Msgr. Fenton's book, concerning Cantate Domino. Are you going to dismiss that? And I didn't even bring up Fr. Rulleau: I conceded that point already. But Msgr. Fenton didn't say which 2 of the 4 beliefs were necessary for salvation. That is only your interpretation. If he didn't disagree with implicit faith, Msgr. Fenton neither explicitly confirmed it despite what you say.
You didn't post anything from Fenton from pg 41 this is all you wrote:
p. 41: The docuмent [Cantate Domino] insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined ... to the one true Church.
-
You don't see that quote from Msgr. Fenton? Check again!
-
In any case, at this point, I want to end my involvement concerning the implicit faith controversy. It really isn't such a big deal as you and probably some others have made it. The main point is that a person, invincibly ignorant, must have supernatural faith and charity to have an efficacious implicit desire to enter the Church. All the rest is detail, important no doubt, but not so much as to undermine EENS, which I firmly believe in as well as the rest of traditional Catholics (I hope), despite the differences in belief concerning the nature of implicit desire. Implicit faith of the Tridentine and pre-Vatican II era is a far cry from Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" which allows for the salvation even of those not disposed to conversion to God by supernatural faith and charity.
EDIT: I knew you wouldn't change your mind, but that doesn't make implicit faith any more wrong or right. You seem to want to say more than what the Church says, even though She hasn't done so.
-
I'll end with this quote also from the page 69 of Msgr. Fenton's book:
... it is the common teaching of the theologians that true supernatural faith can exist even where there is only implicit belief in the Catholic Church and in the Catholic religion.
-
The 1949 Letter simply reiterated the theological state of the question and did not hand down any definitive decision beyond what was already known among theologians. It did not venture to decide the question of whether explicit faith in Christ was needed or implicit faith in Him could suffice. That question is still undecided, although prudence inclines us to favor the better attested opinion among the Doctors and Saints.
“Suarez and the Salmanticenses were of the opinion that, since the promulgation of the gospel, an explicit faith in Christ is per se a necessary means for salvation, but that, as a matter of fact, some people are saved apart from this means per accidens. This opinion, for all practical purposes, is equivalent to the teaching of Blasio Beraza in our own times. Beraza holds that explicit faith in Our Lord as mediator is not absolutely requisite for salvation even in the New Testament.”
Msgr. Fenton's position is that of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, he believes explicit faith in Christ is needed, but that the other view is permissible. If Dimond wants to call Msgr. Fenton a heretic, let him at least be consistent in his schismatic mentality and call St. Alphonsus that as well, as Richard Ibranyi for one freely does, for St. Alphonsus said the same of Suarez' position.
If as is evident from the excerpts you post you get your theological education from these men, and prefer their rantings to the teaching of Fr. Fenton, inspite of their bedazzling ignorance, truly dogmatic sedevacantist Feeneyites of the very worst sort, who anathematize just about every Catholic in the world, yourself included, Bowler, as a heretic, you will inevitably fall into grave error.
-
Msgr. Fenton's position is that of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, he believes explicit faith in Christ is needed, but that the other view is permissible.
That is just your belief that's all, just like QVP you post no proof for it.
You posted his own words and then interpreted that the two beliefs must be belief in God as head of the Supernatural order, and as a rewarder of good and punisher of evil. That's all you did. You can't say that Msgr. Fenton directly stated that these are the two conditions because he didn't, no matter how much you believe he did.
If I teach Implicit faith in every detail when I'm explaining the 1949/1952 letter, and I don't EVER in any writing say that I'm opposed to the fallible theory (which has no root in tradition or any teaching of a saint, and is opposed to the Athanasian creed, and is in no catechism prior to the 20th century etc etc), then either I believe in that theory or I'm a hypocrete currying favor with my superiors. Take your pick.
-
In any case, at this point, I want to end my involvement concerning the implicit faith controversy. It really isn't such a big deal as you and probably some others have made it. The main point is that a person, invincibly ignorant, must have supernatural faith and charity to have an efficacious implicit desire to enter the Church. All the rest is detail, important no doubt, but not so much as to undermine EENS, which I firmly believe in as well as the rest of traditional Catholics (I hope), despite the differences in belief concerning the nature of implicit desire. Implicit faith of the Tridentine and pre-Vatican II era is a far cry from Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" which allows for the salvation even of those not disposed to conversion to God by supernatural faith and charity.
EDIT: I knew you wouldn't change your mind, but that doesn't make implicit faith any more wrong or right. You seem to want to say more than what the Church says, even though She hasn't done so.
This thread is clear as to why it was started; you said the 1949/1952 and Pius XII did not teach Implicit faith. That is what this thread is about, and I have shown through your sources Fr. Rulleau and specially Fr. Fenton, that the 1949/1952 does teach implicit faith. Indeed if it is as you say, and Pius XII approved the letter (which I believe he did), then Pius XII taught implicit faith too. And that is all that I set out to show YOU. As to the rest, there was nothing to teach you since you said you don't believe in implicit faith.
Now, concerning your comment above that:
I want to end my involvement concerning the implicit faith controversy. It really isn't such a big deal as you and probably some others have made it.
This is where you are dead wrong, for the belief in Implicit Faith (like 99% of Catholics, and the whole world believes in implicit faith) is foundational to the Vatican II revolution. Anyone that believes in implicit faith is flawed in their logic, and can be made to believe that black is white. People who believe in implicit faith can't think right. It has no roots in tradition; Fathers, saints, and only appeared in catechisms in the 20th century. Indeed it is diametrically opposed to the Athanasian Creed. Any trad that believes it, is flawed.
-
You are simply mistaken. Fr. Fenton's view is well known, as is his commentary on Suprema Haec Sacra, and you really didn't understand what you read at all, I'm afraid. I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza.
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
I agree with you that the matter is quite important at least. Explicit faith in Christ is necessary even in the invincibly ignorant baptized by desire according to the better theologians, approved authorities, Saints, Doctors and a variety of other sources and the Church may very well close the question some day in favor of the better attested opinion that explicit faith was necessary all along.
-
You are simply mistaken. Fr. Fenton's view is well known, as is his commentary on Suprema Haec Sacra, and you really didn't understand what you read at all, I'm afraid. I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza.
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
"I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza".
I shown many things through the years, but I always repeat them when I'm talking about them. You have not posted anything but at quote above as far as I'm and this thread is concerned. So repeat posting whatever it is that you "already showed you".
That small quote is not enough for me. It is not very clear, and needs further expanding on. Quote some more Fenton.
"In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith".
This needs explanation from Fenton. Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?
-
There are also traditionalist priests who hold to the strict EENS, that only a sacramentally baptized member can be saved. Fr. Waltham and Fr. Hector Bolduc were two big ones in the trad movement. I'm sure others might name more.
Thank you. I am interested in this because I also do not believe in Baptism of Desire, though I do not call those who do believe in it heretics. I did not know of any traditional priests who agree with me although some non-priests like the people at MHFM and others like David Landry who used to post here as CM also deny BOD.
I will look for information about these two priests on the internet.
I think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here (http://www.fatherwathen.com/125.html) is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.
Also, Fr. Gavin P. Bitzer, one of the latest resistance priests I think, does not believe in BOD, not last I heard any way.
-
I think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here (http://www.fatherwathen.com/125.html) is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.
Thank you for the information and the link. I agree with most of it except for this:
(y) Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.
If Baptism of Desire is not true, I believe that if we know someone was not baptized before they die it is possible to know that they are among the damned.
and this:
(t) It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.
If it were true that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, then this would mean that all the unbaptized infants must be given grace to be saved, but this is not true. The unbaptized infants go to Hell through no fault of their own because of original sin.
Other than those two points I like the article.
-
I think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here (http://www.fatherwathen.com/125.html) is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.
Thank you for the information and the link. I agree wit most of it except for this:
(y) Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.
I believe that if we know someone is not baptized before they die it is possible to know that they are not in heaven.
Yes, I believe he was simply making a statement there, he was not saying we do not know where the unbaptized go. . . . . . whereas most BOD supporters will place the sincere unbaptized in heaven as though it is dogma.
and this:
(t) It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.
If it were true that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, then this would mean that all the unbaptized infants must be given grace to be saved, but this is not true. The unbaptized infants go to hell through no fault of their own because of original sin.
Other than those two points I like the article.
We do not know that unbaptized infants go to hell. It has been the teaching of the fathers that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.
-
We do not know that unbaptized infants go to hell. It has been the teaching of the fathers that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.
Limbo as commonly taught is a part of Hell, though there is no fire there and the souls in Limbo are not tormented by the demons.
-
I think Bowler may have meant Fr. James Wathen, not Waltham? Here (http://www.fatherwathen.com/125.html) is one thing Fr. Wathen has to say on the subject.
Thank you for the information and the link. I agree wit most of it except for this:
(y) Even though we can judge that our neighbors are failing to fulfill the requirements for salvation, once they have departed this life, it is impossible to know whether they have been saved or lost.
I believe that if we know someone is not baptized before they die it is possible to know that they are not in heaven.
Yes, I believe he was simply making a statement there, he was not saying we do not know where the unbaptized go. . . . . . whereas most BOD supporters will place the sincere unbaptized in heaven as though it is dogma.
and this:
(t) It is the teaching of the Church that God gives to all men sufficient grace for salvation; to those who are saved, He gives efficacious grace.
If it were true that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, then this would mean that all the unbaptized infants must be given grace to be saved, but this is not true. The unbaptized infants go to hell through no fault of their own because of original sin.
Other than those two points I like the article.
We do not know that unbaptized infants go to hell. It has been the teaching of the fathers that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.
You have stated a pelagian heresy. The church has in fact said that unbaptized infants go to hell- multiple times in fact.
The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all infants born into this world (except Jesus and Mary) inherit the guilt of original sin. She also infallibly teaches that original sin is a real sin that causes real guilt. From the moment of their creation, infants are guilty of the deadly sin of original sin and hence are sinners, impious, and children of Satan:
Council of Trent [hereafter COT], Decree on Original Sin, 1546: “2. If any one asserts that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience has only transfused death ‘and pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,’ let him be anathema, whereas he contradicts the apostle who says: ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’ (Rom. 5:12)â€
Pope St. Zosimus, Council of Carthage XVI, Original Sin and Grace, 418: “Canon 3. It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere else where blessed [beati] infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ (Jn. 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run to the left.â€
Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with original sin go down into hell, but there they receive unequal [disparibus] punishments.â€
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds.â€
St. Augustine, quoted by St. Fulgentius: “The quality of an evil life begins with lack of faith, which takes its beginnings from the guilt of original sin. In it, each one begins to live in such a way that, before he ends his life, which is ended when freed from its bonds, if that soul has lived in the body for the space of one day or one hour, it is necessary that it suffer with that same body the endless punishments of hell, where the devil with his angels will burn forever. …Hold most firmly and never doubt that not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the sacrament of holy baptism must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of original sin.â€
He punishes them with suffering, pain, death, and eternal damnation—unlike ultimately good-willed infants and children whose suffering, pain, and death bring them to eternal life. We will now see how God punishes wicked infants and children with suffering, pain, and death:
· God killed the firstborn males of the Egyptians: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.†(Exodus 12:12)
· God commanded Moses to kill infants and children: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Revenge first the children of Israel on the Madianites… Kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children.†(Num. 31:1-2, 17)
· God commanded Josue to kill infants and children: “And when in the seventh going about the priests sounded with the trumpets, Josue said to all Israel: Shout: for the Lord hath delivered the city to you… So all the people making a shout, and the trumpets sounding, when the voice and the sound thundered in the ears of the multitude, the walls forthwith fell down: and every man went up by the place that was over against him: and they took the city, and killed all that were in it, man and woman, young and old. The oxen also, and the sheep, and the asses, they slew with the edge of the sword.†(Josue 6:16, 20-21)
· God, speaking through the prophet Samuel, commanded King Saul to kill infants and children: “And Samuel said to Saul: …hearken thou unto the voice of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord of hosts: I have reckoned up all that Amalec hath done to Israel: how he opposed them in the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet any thing that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.†(1 Kings 15:1-3)
· God allowed infants to be eaten by their wicked parents: “And thou shalt eat the fruit of thy womb, and the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, in the distress and extremity wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee. …And the filth of the afterbirths, that come forth from between her thighs, and the children that are born the same hour. For they shall eat them secretly for the want of all things, in the siege and distress, wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee within thy gates.†(Deut. 28:53, 57)
· God’s judgment of killing evil infants is invoked by King David: “O daughter of Babylon, miserable: blessed shall he be who shall repay thee thy payment which thou hast paid us. Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock.†(Ps. 136: 8-9)
· God inspires the Prophet Osee to curse evil infants: “Let Samaria perish, because she hath stirred up her God to bitterness: let them perish by the sword, let their little ones be dashed, and let the women with child be ripped up.†(Osee 14:1)
Let that put an end to the idolization of infants and children! Just because you cannot see God’s justice and mercy in this, do not dare call Him unjust or unmerciful because God is all just and all merciful.
-
Like the typical extremist, you're quick to accuse others of "heresy" but cannot even back up your claim.
It is a fact that many Church father taught Limbo. Do you believe they were all heretics?
-
I found this on the MHFM website:
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)
So here we see that a pope infallibly condemned those who called the Limbo of the infants a Pelagian fable. It does not say that Limbo is true, but it condemns those who say the belief in Limbo is a Pelagian heresy.
-
You have stated a pelagian heresy. The church has in fact said that unbaptized infants go to hell- multiple times in fact.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds.
That is an infallible decree, but you are misunderstanding what Stubborn said. Limbo of the infants is a part of Hell, it is the place where children who die unbaptized before the age of reason go. They do not suffer pain sufferings ("undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds"), but will not see the beatific vision.
Here's some more detailed quotes:
"Those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God."
-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216), Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores
“The common teaching of the scholastic theologians is the within the earth there are four inner chambers: one for the damned, another for those being purged of sin, a third for those infants who have died without receiving Baptism, and a fourth which is now empty but once held those just men who died before the passion of Christ.”
-Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church
-
You have stated a pelagian heresy. The church has in fact said that unbaptized infants go to hell- multiple times in fact.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds.�
That is an infallible decree, but you are misunderstanding what Stubborn said. Limbo of the infants is a part of Hell, it is the place where children who die unbaptized before the age of reason go. They do not suffer pain sufferings ("undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds"), but will not see the beatific vision.
Here's some more detailed quotes:
"Those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God."
-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216), Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores
�The common teaching of the scholastic theologians is the within the earth there are four inner chambers: one for the damned, another for those being purged of sin, a third for those infants who have died without receiving Baptism, and a fourth which is now empty but once held those just men who died before the passion of Christ.�
-Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church
I understood stubborn perfectly which is why i responded.
Im afraid it is you and spiritus servitude who misread stubborns post. Stubborn clearly implies that limbo is a third place seperate from hell. This is heresy. I never said that any concept of limbo whatsoever is heresy. Big difference. Also i realize those old testament examples of god killing infants, like the first born of the egyptians during moses' time, was under a different covenant than what we live under now. Regardless, it happened and it should be pointed out to peole who idolize infants and deny dogmatic decrees on original sin.
I have spotted numerous posts on cathinfo where people refuse to acknowledge that limbo is in fact in hell. Pelagian heretics run rampant in the v2 sect where limbo itself has been abolished. Denial of original sin and denial of damned infants leads to a denial of salvation dogma.
-
conquistador1492, I thought you were denying all possibility of Limbo while you were not. Sorry. I agree with you that Limbo might exist and that if it does, it is a part of Hell. I also believe that many saints believed that there was no Limbo and that the souls of those who die in original sin alone go into the actual fires of Hell.
-
Like the typical extremist, you're quick to accuse others of "heresy" but cannot even back up your claim.
It is a fact that many Church father taught Limbo. Do you believe they were all heretics?
Yeah really.
To clarify............ the little baby who dies without Baptism, cannot go to Heaven. He has never committed a mortal sin. But he lacks the entrance requirement for Heaven. He will not be punished for having rejected Baptism. He will not be accused by God of having committed a mortal sin. He will go to the essential Hell (Limbo) which is the loss of the Beatific Vision.
But he will not go to the Hell of fire where one is positively punished for what one has positively done.
Is that better or is that what you call the pelagian heresy?
-
Ok, sorry conquistador. I thought you were saying the concept of Limbo itself was heresy. My apologies.
-
Dear Nishant:
You are simply mistaken. Fr. Fenton's view is well known, as is his commentary on Suprema Haec Sacra, and you really didn't understand what you read at all, I'm afraid. I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza.
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”
"I already showed you Msgr. Fenton arguing against the opinion of Suarez and also that of Beraza".
I shown many things through the years, but I always repeat them when I'm talking about them. You have not posted anything but at quote above as far as I'm and this thread is concerned. So repeat posting whatever it is that you "already showed you".
That small quote is not enough for me. It is not very clear, and needs further expanding on. Quote some more Fenton.
"In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith".
This needs explanation from Fenton. Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?
-
Limbo is yet another example where the enlightened thought of the Angelic Doctor was primarily responsible for directing Catholic teaching. After his wise and just considerations on the fate of unbaptized infants, that the privation of the divine vision is the proper and only punishment of those who depart this life in original sin alone, it soon became the unanimous teaching of the Catholic schools.
And for Bowler, here, I think for the third time, is Fenton.
“Suarez and the Salmanticenses were of the opinion that, since the promulgation of the gospel, an explicit faith in Christ is per se a necessary means for salvation, but that, as a matter of fact, some people are saved apart from this means per accidens. This opinion, for all practical purposes, is equivalent to the teaching of Blasio Beraza in our own times. Beraza holds that explicit faith in Our Lord as mediator is not absolutely requisite for salvation even in the New Testament.”
-
Dear Nishant:
"In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith".
This needs explanation from Fenton. Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?
-
Dear Nishant:
"In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith".
This needs explanation from Fenton. Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?
That is a most important question that requires answering. Where are the Fr. Fenton defenders to answer?
-
It has been already answered. Do read carefully.
Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation?
Yes. "Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation."
AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?
Yes. "It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation"
Msgr. Fenton continues,
True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man.
Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.
-
OK, thanks. However, Let's keep in mind that that is Fr. Fenton's take on the purposely ambiguous 1949/1952 letter. Good for him. However, let's keep in mind the reality that the 1+ billion Catholics today, including the theologians believe that it teaches implicit faith.
The 1949/1952 fallible letter is a "Vatican II like ambiguous" docuмent that requires interpretation, and they can't come to an agreement whether it teaches implicit faith or not. They can't agree on the meaning of a docuмent that is supposed to explain something definitively. Fr. Fenton's explanation is akin to Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson's explanation of how Vatican II should be interpreted in light of tradition. No one but a few trads agree with him, so, what good has it done?
Anyhow, good for Fr. Fenton, at least he is sound there.
---------------------------------
Moving on with Fr. Fenton (and St. Thomas Aquinas), how is it possible that God can teach someone the difficult mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't teach them that they need to be baptized to be saved? That makes no sense. He can enlighten their minds internally to understand and accept difficult myteries when taught to them by a preacher, or he can actually teach them completely internally without a preacher to teach them (St. Thomas teaching)> However, He can't teach them to get baptized. According to BODers the sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means of justification, and salvation, but baptism of desire is the extraordinary. What is so extraordinary about telling a person that they need to be baptized?
-
Good for him. However, let's keep in mind the reality that the 1+ billion Catholics today, including the theologians
Yes, but let's also remember that few things are so often counselled by the Popes as sure remedies and weapons against modernism than strict adherence to Thomistic theology, to answering and overcoming the problems and errors of the day, within the Church and without. This is the way to overcome indifferentism in the Church and then the world today.
It is characteristic of modernism that it is anti-Thomist. And "Feeneyites" by attacking Baptism of desire and often having a disrespect for St. Thomas on account of it do not help, do they? They would do much better to follow St. Thomas and others in merely teaching that explicit faith in Christ is always necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved. In this case, there are great authorities on their side and almost no one against. If it were actually formulated like this, explicit versus implicit faith in Christ as a disposition required even for baptism of desire, I'm sure many Society and other priests would say, or after studying the question from history, tradition and the authorities and theologians, say faith in Christ is always necessary themselves and as the better attested opinion.
how is it possible that God can teach someone the difficult mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't teach them that they need to be baptized to be saved? That makes no sense
God brings them to faith in Christ by some supernatural means, perhaps by sending an Angel, perhaps by an internal illumination wherein Christ manifests Himself to that chosen soul. He does not see it necessary to confer the visible sacrament since He gives the interior grace proper to it to the soul that loves Him with perfect charity, and He demonstrates His power in this way says St. Thomas that He is not bound to the sacraments.
But this is extraoardinary and in the nature of a miracle, so no one has a right to presume on it, somewhat like we do not have a right to presume God will provide suoernaturally for our food when it is in our power to work for it. This was how the missionaries of old operated, either those who are perishing have to receive knowledge of Christ from us or directly and extraordinarily straight from God, and this is the Thomistic doctrine, that we on the other hand are bound to the sacraments and to work under them.
-
how is it possible that God can teach someone the difficult mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't teach them that they need to be baptized to be saved? That makes no sense
God brings them to faith in Christ by some supernatural means, perhaps by sending an Angel, perhaps by an internal illumination wherein Christ manifests Himself to that chosen soul. He does not see it necessary to confer the visible sacrament since He gives the interior grace proper to it to the soul that loves Him with perfect charity, and He demonstrates His power in this way says St. Thomas that He is not bound to the sacraments.
Your answer is that God does not see the sacrament as necessary. And this is the bottom line of BODers they deny the need of baptism, however, God teaches otherwise, he does see it as necessary. He has decreed it dogmatically. It is also simple for God to do, as opposed to infusing intenally the knowledge and the grace of acceptance of the belief in the Mysteires of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Therefore, the theory of St. Thomas makes no sense to anyone that believes the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation are very difficult to teach and accept, while the need for baptism is easy to teach, and that God commands that we must be baptized.
By the way, if only supernatural faith can bring about justification by baptism of desire, and supernatural faith is belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, how could Cornelius have been justified (as you said he was) when he said he never so much as heard of the Holy Ghost (Hence he never heard of the Trinity)?
-
Your answer is that God does not see the sacrament as necessary.
That is a rather poor surmise of what I said, I'll presume it wasn't intentional. Just like God demonstrates His power by forgiving sins outside the confessional to the faithful who are remorseful over their sin by a perfect love of Him for His own sake, for the desire for the sacrament of penance is implicit in such an act, in like manner God demonstrates His power for the catechumen who loves Him truly, for the desire for the sacrament of baptism is implicit in such an act of love.
You have never pondered the words of the Gospel and the Apostle about the love of God, how it covers a multitude of sin, how he who loves God truly is born of God, how if any man loves Christ, the Father and the Son come to dwell in Him. God draws souls to Him by love and it is His nature to irresistibly be drawn to those who love Him truly and rightly and kindle their hearts with the fire of divine love.
By the way, your memory of Cornelius is wrong. It was water baptism Cornelius had never heard of, you are confusing him with others described several chapters later in Acts. In that passage in Acts 10 about Cornelius, the Prince of the Apostles was preaching the Trinity and the Incarnation, and even the Passion and Resurrection and moved to love at the knowledge of what God had done, Cornelius received the Holy Ghost exactly as the water baptized Apostles had, so said St. Peter. St. Thomas says Cornelius and those like him receive grace through their faith in Christ and desire for baptism, implicit or explicit.
-
Your answer is that God does not see the sacrament as necessary.
That is a rather poor surmise of what I said, I'll presume it wasn't intentional.
It is exactly what you said, you said "He does not see it necessary to confer the visible sacrament". Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so what else can what you wrote mean? You just don't like to hear it, but it is the bottom line.
Just like God demonstrates His power by forgiving sins outside the confessional to the faithful who are remorseful over their sin by a perfect love of Him for His own sake, for the desire for the sacrament of penance is implicit in such an act,
That is dogmatically explained clearly in the Council of Trent in the section on the sacrament of penance. That is why we have to believe it.
in like manner God demonstrates His power for the catechumen who loves Him truly, for the desire for the sacrament of baptism is implicit in such an act of love.
That is never taught in Trent anywhere, and where it would appear, the section on baptism, it says nothing, moreover it says clearly (Dogma):
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
That is what we have to believe.
-
Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so what else can what you wrote mean?
Exactly what St. Thomas taught as his doctrine, "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit."
Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."
He also forestalled and answered your objection
"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"
And your false understanding of Trent is a novelty unknown to four centuries before Fr. Feeney. Trent taught baptism of desire, the question is closed, in no way can you lawfully deny it.
-
in like manner God demonstrates His power for the catechumen who loves Him truly, for the desire for the sacrament of baptism is implicit in such an act of love.
That is never taught in Trent anywhere, and where it would appear, the section on baptism, it says nothing, moreover it says clearly (Dogma):
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
That is what we have to believe.
By the way, your inserting a catechumen into the discussion confuses the discussion, since we are discussing implicit desire, people who don't know that they have to be baptized to be saved. The catechumen knows that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
If it was the case of the catechumen I would ask how is it that God taught him everything through preachers, but could not keep him alive long enough to have the water poured on him? Two different discussions. We are only discussing implicit desire of St. Thomas now.
-
Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so what else can what you wrote mean?
Exactly what St. Thomas taught as his doctrine, "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit."
Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."
He also forestalled and answered your objection
"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"
Another theory of baptism of desire, the recipient does not go straight to heaven, like he would if he were baptized. What a mess! Yet another example of how I'm required not follow clear dogmas, but I am to believe in a series of never ending illogical non-sequitors that "explain" the clear dogmas.
And your false understanding of Trent is a novelty unknown to four centuries before Fr. Feeney. Trent taught baptism of desire, the question is closed, in no way can you lawfully deny it.
Like all BOders you always revert to threats when you can't respond. Well, that is just your opinion, until the Church decides dogmatically on the matter.
No, the only thing I have to believe is clear dogma from the Holy Ghost:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Your theories make no sense, even baptism of desire of the catechumen
St. Augustine: ‘ “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
No, the only thing I have to believe is clear dogma from the Holy Ghost
This opinion is condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus.
Like all BOders you always revert to threats when you can't respond. Well, that is just your opinion, until the Church decides dogmatically on the matter.
It is not a threat to say that the Church has already decided it. It is something all Catholics must know and say.
It would be easy to verify if it were false. Just like it is easy to verify Fr. Feeney's view on Trent is an utter novelty unknown for 400 years before it.
-
No, the only thing I have to believe is clear dogma from the Holy Ghost
This opinion is condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus.
In the context of my comment, your response is nonsense, the magisterium has not unanimously defined against EENS as it is written. Yet another BOD non-sequitor.
Like all BOders you always revert to threats when you can't respond. Well, that is just your opinion, until the Church decides dogmatically on the matter.
It is not a threat to say that the Church has already decided it. It is something all Catholics must know and say.
It would be easy to verify if it were false.
If it was easy, it would have been defined. It has not. It is not easy, and the Church has not concluded the matter.
Just like it is easy to verify Fr. Feeney's view on Trent is an utter novelty unknown for 400 years before it
I don't know what Fr. Feeney's view was. I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS. Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.
- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church some how.
-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven
- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.
- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.
- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire
- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.
- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.
I could go on and on.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in
the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to
say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the
obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely
enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
-
For me it seems that one must reject Baptism of Desire or one must accept universal salvation like the followers of Vatican II. Once someone can be saved without Baptism, why cannot all?
-
No, the only thing I have to believe is clear dogma from the Holy Ghost
This opinion is condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus.
Like all BOders you always revert to threats when you can't respond. Well, that is just your opinion, until the Church decides dogmatically on the matter.
It is not a threat to say that the Church has already decided it. It is something all Catholics must know and say.
It would be easy to verify if it were false. Just like it is easy to verify Fr. Feeney's view on Trent is an utter novelty unknown for 400 years before it.
Two points for Nishant..............
First, you make it out like BOD is an exception to the dogma, if you believe it is an exception, then the burden of proof lies upon you to prove that; a) the dogma states that there is an exception and b) that BOD is this exception.
Second, you are placing the time frame more or less, correctly, but the landmark (Fr. Feeney) should more readily be directed at the one who started the whole mess.
It is more accurate to say that for 1930 years(+/-) before Archbishop [Cardinal] Richard Cushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing) of Boston, the Church taught the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version:
Think that it's only all a big coincidence considering Archbishop Cushing's sister was married to a Jew?
-
In the context of my comment, your response is nonsense the magisterium has not unanimously defined against EENS as it is written
No, it is not. You do not appear at all to have the habit of submission and docility toward the Magisterium. You are bound by much more than just extraordinary pronouncements.
The ordinary Magisterium of the same Pope Pius IX has already approved the Thomistic doctrine on invincible ignorance and internal illumination as a saving and efficacious virtue.
Your view on Trent is a brazen novelty, which you ignore on a false pretext. The Catholic Church is a Church of Tradition and novelties like yours easily stand out. Trent taught baptism of desire and no one has ever said otherwise until Fr. Feeney.
-
For me it seems that one must reject Baptism of Desire or one must accept universal salvation like the followers of Vatican II. Once someone can be saved without Baptism, why cannot all?
Because Supernatural Faith is required. If we follow St. Thomas, all we are saying is that a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. That is de fide.
Here's an explanation of EENS by John Daly that explains it quite well:
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church. Only invincible ignorance can excuse from grave sin anyone who fails to do so. Those who are invincibly ignorant of the duty of joining the Church will not be held guilty by God of failing to do so. But they are not therefore to be considered automatically in the way of salvation. If they fail to observe the natural law engraved on their consciences and the divine positive law insofar as it is known to them, they will certainly be lost.
Nor is fidelity to his conscience enough for the salvation of such a person. Salvation is a supernatural good which can be obtained only by living the supernatural life - it is never a reward for merely natural virtue. Now actual grace is freely distributed by God to all men, but sanctifying grace, the supernatural life, is found exclusively in the supernatural society founded by God. The state of grace exists, to be sure, in some persons who are not visibly united with the Church in her external communion, but only because they are, in fact, already within her in voto - by desire. For the state of grace, or supernatural life, is what salvation depends on. And if it were possible to possess supernatural life outside the Church, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church would be false.
Nor is this a mere matter of precept to which exceptions may exist. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. And whereas invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. Those who failed to clamber aboard Noah's Ark were all drowned in the Flood, irrespective of whether this failure was due to invincible ignorance or not. Does it follow that God will punish by deprival of salvation those who were guilty of no sin by their failure to join the Church? It does not. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the duty to enter the Church, but faithfully obeys the dictates of conscience, will receive the supernatural enlightenment necessary to enable him to make an act of supernatural faith. If he co-operates with actual grace by making this act, he can proceed to the act of hope and the act of charity, thereby acquiring the state of sanctifying grace - supernatural life. In this case he is united with the Catholic Church by desire (which remains partly implicit), for by faith he believes whatever God has revealed (even if he knows very little of what that revelation contains) and by charity he desires to accomplish the will of God (though he does not realise that this implies joining the Catholic Church.)
What is the nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church? There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, of course, a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, whereas one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:
(i) The existence of a single God
(ii) That God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) The triune nature of God
(iv) The Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.
(A minority of recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.)
God will make known His revelation of the necessary articles to anyone who is faithful to conscience, so that the necessary means of salvation may not be wanting to him. The statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is, therefore, absolutely true and admits of no exception whatsoever. For the purposes of eligibility for salvation, the Church includes not only recognised Catholics, but also catechumens and all those who, being invincibly ignorant of the duty to join her, possess true supernatural faith, explicit as to the necessary articles, allowing them to be counted Catholics in voto - by desire.
Invincible ignorance is neither a sacrament nor a virtue: it cannot therefore sanctify or save. It simply excuses the breach of the law of which one is invincibly ignorant. The faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation is a supernatural virtue moving one to believe firmly all that God has revealed, and is explicit as to the essential articles listed above. It cannot be replaced by Protestant "faith" meaning the impious and unjustified conviction that one's sins are forgiven (Dz. 802), or by natural knowledge of God's existence, or by mere opinion as to supernatural truths; nor can it be a faith having no object - it is necessary to believe what God has in fact revealed. What is necessary for salvation by necessity of means admits of no substitute, excuse or exception. Ignorance thereof is always either sinful in itself or permitted by God in consequence of other sins against one's conscience. What is necessary by precept, but not by necessity of means, admits exceptions in the case of invincible ignorance. God may allow exceptions to positive law, but not to dogma.
Thus it is not in every case absolutely necessary for salvation to be within the visible communion of the Catholic Church, but it is absolutely necessary to share the Church's faith and to be united with her at least in voto.
Of those who die outside the visible communion of the Church, it is certain that the following are damned:
1. All those who manifestly lack supernatural faith
2. All those who die in a state of manifest sin against the natural law known to all men, or to the revealed law of God insofar as they are aware of it.
3. All those who are manifestly not invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church.
Hence the Holy See has repeatedly condemned the practice of even conjecturing about the final destiny of such persons, as though it were a matter of doubt.
As to those who die outside the Church's visible communion, but after a life of apparent virtue, with the possibility of invincible ignorance of the Church and true supernatural faith, their salvation is certainly possible. However, it would be a mistake to presume that case to be a common one. For if, for such people, actual membership of the visible Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation, it remains the ordinary means of salvation, and the ordinary channel of those graces and helps to salvation which men commonly stand in need of. And it is not readily to be conceded that God bypasses the economy of salvation which He has established and promulgated. Nor are such people excused from the ordinary duties of prayer to obtain the grace of fidelity to God, perfect contrition to recover grace after grave sin, etc.
-
In the context of my comment, your response is nonsense the magisterium has not unanimously defined against EENS as it is written
No, it is not. You do not appear at all to have the habit of submission and docility toward the Magisterium. You are bound by much more than just extraordinary pronouncements.
The ordinary Magisterium of the same Pope Pius IX has already approved the Thomistic doctrine on invincible ignorance and internal illumination as a saving and efficacious virtue.
Your view on Trent is a brazen novelty, which you ignore on a false pretext. The Catholic Church is a Church of Tradition and novelties like yours easily stand out. Trent taught baptism of desire and no one has ever said otherwise until Fr. Feeney.
Nonsense. The teachings of the Fathers came before baptism of desire of St. Thomas, it can't be a novelty. You have no common sense.
In all her dogmatic decrees on the subject of EENS and baptism, the Church has not condemned the constant teaching of the Fathers that John 3:15 is to be taken lierally.
Again:
I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS. Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.
- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church some how.
-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven
- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.
- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.
- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire
- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.
- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.
I could go on and on.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in
the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to
say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the
obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely
enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
-
Here's an explanation of EENS by John Daly that explains it quite well:
Thank you for the quote. I still see it as trying to circle a square.
-
The bottom line is that you do not believe John 3:15 literally, nor do you believe literally the clear dogmas on EENS and baptism, so, you have to come up with something, and you follow whatever theologian you can find.
I on the other hand ONLY believe in John 3:15 literally (as it is written), and believe the clear dogmas on EENS and baptism literally as they are written, because the Fathers believed it, and most importantly I have to do no personal (or use theologians) "interpretation", of clear dogmas to make it work. It is all logical to anyone that approaches the matter using common language.
Your mental gymnastics does not appeal to me. It is the vortex of confusion described by St. Augustine:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
“If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
I cannot understand how the idea of Baptism of Desire does not deny this. The belief in Baptism of Desire clearly makes Baptism optional so it is therefore condemned.
-
Here is more from the BOD promoter, Cardinal Cushing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing)
......He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[14] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.[15] Cushing strongly condemned Communism, particularly the regime of Josip Broz Tito.[16]
Cushing resigned as Boston's archbishop on September 8, 1970, after 25 years of service. Upon his resignation, *Senator Ted Kennedy stated, "For three-quarters of a century [Cushing's] life has been a light in a world that cries out for illumination. He will never have to account for his stewardship, for if his goodness is not known to God, no one's ever will be."[17]
*Senator Ted Kenedy was staunchly pro abortion.
-
“If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
I cannot understand how the idea of Baptism of Desire does not deny this. The belief in Baptism of Desire clearly makes Baptism optional so it is therefore condemned.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “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 sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”
-
Nonsense. The teachings of the Fathers came before baptism of desire of St. Thomas, it can't be a novelty. You have no common sense.
Ridiculous. You are trying to pit the Fathers against the Church. All the scholastic theologians disagreed with your equally novel reading of St. Ambrose in particular (no one thought it was unclear or that Valentian did not die a catechumen) and St. Augustine as well. You can't get around the fact that Trent closed the question and Fr. Feeney's view that Trent did not teach baptism of desire remains a novelty utterly unknown to four centuries before it.
Stubborn, Archbishop Cushing is irrelevant to me. The Holy Office statement Bowler says he would not accept even though believes it came with Pope Pius XII's approval. That's what I mean by not having an attitude of submission, which the very habit of supernatural faith in fact requires in us and that statement is very grave. I thought you followers and sympathizers with Fr. Feeney genuinely were concerned about indifferentism, I'm not so sure any more.
-
Nishant, please show me where the Council of Trent teaches Baptism of Desire.
-
Here's an explanation of EENS by John Daly that explains it quite well:
Thank you for the quote. I still see it as trying to circle a square.
Of course you do. You also believe NOBODY has properly understood the teaching of the Church Fathers for the last 1000 years.
-
Easily enough, Matto.
· Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
· Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): "....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 now, will you say the Council Fathers misunderstood themselves?
Also, St. Alphonsus as merely one among many to properly understand Trent - "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 ... 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"
Show me a single authority or person who took Trent to mean what you do before Fr. Feeney?
It should be absurdly easy to do if the view were not a novelty.
-
· Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
All this means is that one has to be baptized and have a desire to be baptized. It does not say that desire alone is sufficient.
I know about the Catechism, but Trent itself does not teach baptism of desire.
And once again, how does Baptism of Desire not make Baptism optional?
-
Here are the teachings of the Popes. Notice what is NOT said here:
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which absolutely no one is saved. (Pope Innocent III, IV Council of the Lateran, 1215 A.D.) (Dz 430)
It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302 A.D.) (Dz 469)
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church (nisi in Catholicae Ecclesiae gremio et unitate permanserit). (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1442 A.D.) (Dz 714)
-
I'm stepping out. Arguing this is pointless. Very rarely will it lead to a change in opinion. :popcorn:
-
Matto, please answer this, then I will answer you. "Show me a single authority or person who took Trent to mean what you do before Fr. Feeney?
It should be absurdly easy to do if the view were not a novelty."
how does Baptism of Desire not make Baptism optional
Because the ultimate reality of baptism which is justification and placing the soul in the state of grace, that which is indispensably necessary, is effected by desire perfected by charity.
-
· Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
All this means is that one has to be baptized and have a desire to be baptized. It does not say that desire alone is sufficient.
I know about the Catechism, but Trent itself does not teach baptism of desire.
And once again, how does Baptism of Desire not make Baptism optional?
Matto, here is a pope TELLING us we must accept The Catechism of the Council of Trent.
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.
-
See my post above. I'm done. I'm not qualified to argue about theology anyway.
-
Show me a single authority or person who took Trent to mean what you do before Fr. Feeney?
It should be absurdly easy to do if the view were not a novelty.
Yes, it is absurdly easy. Try reading the actual infallible declarations maybe? Perhaps even the words of Our Lord?
It is YOU who are the one who needs to prove that the dogma states that there is an exception and b) that BOD is this exception.
Until you do that, and we all look forward to it, you will need to admit that your definition of BOD contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.
-
· Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
All this means is that one has to be baptized and have a desire to be baptized. It does not say that desire alone is sufficient.
I know about the Catechism, but Trent itself does not teach baptism of desire.
And once again, how does Baptism of Desire not make Baptism optional?
Matto, here is a pope TELLING us we must accept The Catechism of the Council of Trent.
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.
Don't forget this part:
Doctor John Hogan, the present Rector of the Irish College in Rome, writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology. Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible;but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de tide."
-
Show me a single authority or person who took Trent to mean what you do before Fr. Feeney?
It should be absurdly easy to do if the view were not a novelty.
Yes, it is absurdly easy. Try reading the actual infallible declarations maybe? Perhaps even the words of Our Lord?
It is YOU who are the one who needs to prove that the dogma states that there is an exception and b) that BOD is this exception.
Until you do that, and we all look forward to it, you will need to admit that your definition of BOD contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.
Exacto. and
From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Walthen
Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
-
Yes, it is absurdly easy.
Then why did you avoid doing it?
Try reading the actual infallible declarations maybe?
Why has no one ever understood it in the novel way you have? Not even the very Council Fathers themselves nor the drafters of the Catechism?
Simple, because the Catholic Church is a Church of Tradition and your novelty easily stands out.
I believe the dogma just as the dogma has always been believed, not in your novel way. That's why you can find no one who understood Trent like you do while I easily and effortlessly can.
the dogma states that there is an exception
This is ridiculous. BOD is not an "exception" to EENS.
-
· Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
All this means is that one has to be baptized and have a desire to be baptized. It does not say that desire alone is sufficient.
I know about the Catechism, but Trent itself does not teach baptism of desire.
And once again, how does Baptism of Desire not make Baptism optional?
Matto, here is a pope TELLING us we must accept The Catechism of the Council of Trent.
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.
Don't forget this part:
Doctor John Hogan, the present Rector of the Irish College in Rome, writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology. Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible;but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de tide."
AND the Catechism of Trent is not saying that they are saved if they die in that condition. That is a lousy translation.
-
With a different highlighting.
Don't forget this part:
Doctor John Hogan, the present Rector of the Irish College in Rome, writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology. Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible;but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de tide."
To accept it you are certainly bound.
-
Yes, it is absurdly easy.
Then why did you avoid doing it?
Try reading the actual infallible declarations maybe?
Why has no one ever understood it in the novel way you have? Not even the very Council Fathers themselves nor the drafters of the Catechism?
Simple, because the Catholic Church is a Church of Tradition and your novelty easily stands out.
I believe the dogma just as the dogma has always been believed, not in your novel way. That's why you can find no one who understood Trent like you do while I easily and effortlessly can.
the dogma states that there is an exception
This is ridiculous. BOD is not an "exception" to EENS.
Oh c'mon, that's not even a "nice try".
You are one who claims salvation without the sacrament - now you need to point out where this exception is stated in the defined dogmas.
If you cannot do that then you have no choice except to admit that BOD, as you define it, is an exception to dogma - certainly you are torn between admitting BOD is indeed an exception - or admitting that there is no such thing as the BOD as defined by you which you believe in.
-
Oh c'mon, that's not even a "nice try".
You are one who claims salvation without the sacrament - now you need to point out where this exception is stated in the defined dogmas.
If you cannot do that then you have no choice except to admit that BOD, as you define it, is an exception to dogma - certainly you are torn between admitting BOD is indeed an exception - or admitting that there is no such thing as the BOD as defined by you which you believe in.
Fallacies galore! I said I would not deal with implicit faith anymore, but I will deal with BOD generally speaking. It is ridiculous to pretend BOD just means salvation without the sacrament. BOD's underlying assumption is that the person wants to be baptized, explicitly or implicitly, according to St. Alphonsus; who are you to say that the person having explicit or implicit desire is still damned, if he dies without water baptism through no fault of his own. How does it contradict EENS? Stubborn, you and bowler are different. You may use him for support, but he at least acknowledges explicit and implicit desire (at least from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus), though he is totally against implicit faith.
-
Oh c'mon, that's not even a "nice try".
You are one who claims salvation without the sacrament - now you need to point out where this exception is stated in the defined dogmas.
If you cannot do that then you have no choice except to admit that BOD, as you define it, is an exception to dogma - certainly you are torn between admitting BOD is indeed an exception - or admitting that there is no such thing as the BOD as defined by you which you believe in.
Fallacies galore! I said I would not deal with implicit faith anymore, but I will deal with BOD generally speaking. It is ridiculous to pretend BOD just means salvation without the sacrament. BOD's underlying assumption is that the person wants to be baptized, explicitly or implicitly, according to St. Alphonsus; who are you to say that the person having explicit or implicit desire is still damned, if he dies without water baptism through no fault of his own. How does it contradict EENS? Stubborn, you and bowler are different. You may use him for support, but he at least acknowledges explicit and implicit desire (at least from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus), though he is totally against implicit faith.
As you say - however defined dogma makes no exception whatsoever - the sacrament is necessary - period.
The desire to be baptized as being salvic without reception of the sacrament, whether implicit or explicit, is not found in any defined dogma because it is not a part of nor is it ever even implied in defined dogma, it's simply not there - this makes the common understanding of BOD an exception to defined dogma - and obviously so.
You may disagree with that all you want but it will still be a fact.
If you sincerely choose to believe that one can be saved without the sacrament, then you do not have a choice in the matter - you must start with that which we know to be without the slightest possibility of error and go from there - as such, we must start with defined dogma.
So pick your dogma which is the rule, declaring the sacrament is wholly necessary for salvation - then using the same dogma, demonstrate the exception (aka desire) to the rule - if you cannot then then you have no choice but to admit there is no exception - hence, BOD does not save anyone.
OTOH, since those who choose to believe so strongly in a BOD, it should be child's play to demonstrate that defined dogma includes a BOD.
-
Trent clearly says so (St. Alphonsus says it is de fide), and you ignore it, like all other Feeneyites. BOD assumes the person if he still survived would go to receive the sacrament. Lots of non-sequiturs in your posts. By your ruling, all catechumens go to Hell if they die through no fault of their own, which is quite false if they want to received the sacrament and going through the preparation, suddenly die. Don't pretend there are no cases like that!
BTW, I accidentally liked your post when I should have disliked it.
EDIT: Dislike all you want but you have no argument, only repetitions of your very flawed logic. And also, way to go, hijacking bowler's original thread which only focused on implicit faith to BOD in general. Very typical of Feeneyites ignoring critical distinctions!
-
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
I can't believe Fr. Wathen said this. Of course the popes weren't heretics! What a silly thing to say, and then he goes on to suggest that the moral unanimity the theologians since have all been subject to "modern delusions."
-
Trent clearly says so (St. Alphonsus says it is de fide), and you ignore it, like all other Feeneyites. BOD assumes the person if he still survived would go to receive the sacrament. Lots of non-sequiturs in your posts. By your ruling, all catechumens go to Hell if they die through no fault of their own, which is quite false if they want to received the sacrament and going through the preparation, suddenly die. Don't pretend there are no cases like that!
BTW, I accidentally liked your post when I should have disliked it.
EDIT: Dislike all you want but you have no argument, only repetitions of your very flawed logic. And also, way to go, hijacking bowler's original thread which only focused on implicit faith to BOD in general. Very typical of Feeneyites ignoring critical distinctions!
Again, you ignore the dogma like Cardinal Cushing - before appeared, no one even knew there was another way to heaven.
Well, unlike you, I do not care if I am right or wrong, I seek only the truth and will admit that I am wrong when I know I am wrong - actually being wrong or right means very little in comparison with admitting the truth - that's just me.
The fathers and doctors of the Church who taught BOD can be wrong - particularly when you seek to put their teaching of BOD in harmony with defined dogma - same as St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. It happens to all humans with only one exception - that would be the pope when he speaks ex cathedra.
Like it or not, that is the way it is. Were that not the case then you should be jumping at the opportunity I presented to you instead of making the same old remarks about Fr. Feeney instead of exposing the instigator, Cardinal Cushing for his part in the whole deceptive episode, and the same remarks about St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - while in the process unknowingly or not, belittling St. Augustine, as well as the popes who defined infallibly for us the dogma.
Belittle no more, instead, prove what you believe using defined dogma as your starting point. If you cannot do that then in the interest of admitting the truth - admit that BOD is either an exception or an addition to defined dogma - either way, I do not understand why you do not jump at the opportunity. . . . . . unless in your pride, you are more afraid of being wrong than admitting the truth.
-
I believe as Trent says, as St. Alphonsus does (though not as he ranks BOD, as de fide). That's it. Way to misconstrue the argument of BODers and mixing it with Cardinal Cushing's liberalism. BODers don't claim another way to Heaven; they claim Baptism is necessary but in case of unforeseen deaths, the person enters the Church through his explicit or implicit desire for Baptism. If the person still lives, if he knows the need for Baptism, he must be baptized. We believe Baptism is necessary in fact or in votum to enter the Church, which you conveniently ignore in Trent.
Also, I didn't know you read minds, that you could tell I'm not seeking the truth as you are. :rolleyes: Tell me what else I think.
-
I believe as Trent says, as St. Alphonsus does. That's it. Way to misconstrue the argument of BODers and mixing it with Cardinal Cushing's liberalism. BODers don't claim another way to Heaven; they claim Baptism is necessary but in case of unforeseen deaths. the person enters the Church through his explicit or implicit desire for Baptism. If the person still lives, if he knows the need for Baptism, he must be baptized. We believe Baptism is necessary in fact or in votum, which you conveniently ignore in Trent.
Also, I didn't know you read minds, that you could tell I'm not seeking the truth as you are. Tell me what else I think.
Why do you not start with the truth, aka defined dogma?
-
Why do you not start with the truth, aka defined dogma?
If you're talking about the necessity of Baptism, no one denies it, even if you believe it differently.
Also, there are other truths in the Catholic religion, not defined strictly speaking, but still need to be believed, to remain Catholic. I don't understand this fixation of believing only defined dogma.
-
Why do you not start with the truth, aka defined dogma?
If you're talking about the necessity of Baptism, no one denies it, even if you believe it differently.
Also, there are other truths in the Catholic religion, not defined strictly speaking, but still need to be believed, to remain Catholic. I don't understand this fixation of believing only defined dogma.
A clear challenge has been presented and all you can do is say the same tired old thing over and over, purposely avoiding it.
Here is your big chance to justify your belief using defined dogma, prove BOD using the below canon from Trent - or admit BOD is an addition or exception to defined dogma already:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
:rolleyes: Same old tired logic that says BODers insists baptism is optional. You haven't proven anything of the sort. ANYTHING! I use Trent too for BOD, and you, as is usual for Feenyites, conveniently ignore it.
Here it is again:
Session 7 Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema." (Dz 847).
You might as well say all BODers are heretics by saying we go against defined dogma! Only Fr. Feeney and others after 1950 are correct, and those who implemented the Council, like St. Charles Borromeo (especially in helping write the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which clearly states catechumens can go to Heaven if they die prematurely, provided they truly desired the Sacrament), are heretical, or nearly so, is that it?
-
The root reason is you do not the have the spirit of the Saints which delighted in submission to the Magisterium. Otherwise tell me, as you yourself concede, why have the fruits of the "Feeneyites" been remiss or even non-existent? Why, given that they are the last .001% of Catholics who allegedly believe correctly, why are they not out converting the world and have hardly succeeded in it? Why have non-Feeneyite missionaries like Archbishop Lefebvre borne far greater fruits?
It's because you try foolishly to scrutinize what you should accept in humility. It is like saying the Holy Trinity contradicts the "clear dogma" of monotheism therefore you won't accept it. Exactly like it, it is unenlightened and even terribly darkened reasoning, because the threefold baptism is Trinitarian and does not contradict the one baptism. This is wonderfully explained by St. Catherine based on the epistle and the Gospel of St. John the Apostle, where it is written of the water, the spirit and the blood, the three are one just as in the same passage it is written the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, the Three are One.
-
:rolleyes: Same old tired logic that says BODers insists baptism is optional. You haven't proven anything of the sort. ANYTHING! I use Trent too for BOD, and you, as is usual for Feenyites, conveniently ignore it.
Here it is again:
Session 7 Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema." (Dz 847).
You might as well say all BODers are heretics by saying we go against defined dogma! Only Fr. Feeney and others after 1950 are correct, and those who implemented the Council, like St. Charles Borromeo (especially in helping write the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which clearly states catechumens can go to Heaven if they die prematurely, provided they truly desired the Sacrament), are heretical, or nearly so, is that it?
QVP, you must first understand why this canon is even there in the first place - the reason is that the canon is teaching infallibly about the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. The canon is not teaching about the necessity of desiring the sacraments for salvation. If you read it in the correct context, you will have to admit your misunderstanding is obvious.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous;
Here above, we see plainly the sacraments of the New Law are necessary, not superfluous.
Now read what the rest of the cannon teaches...........
[If anyone says the sacraments are not necessary] and [say] that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema."
Now that you've hopefully read this canon in it's correct context, if you still choose to believe it teaches BOD then you fool only yourself.
-
The root reason is you do not the have the spirit of the Saints which delighted in submission to the Magisterium. Otherwise tell me, as you yourself concede, why have the fruits of the "Feeneyites" been remiss or even non-existent? Why, given that they are the last .001% of Catholics who allegedly believe correctly, why are they not out converting the world and have hardly succeeded in it? Why have non-Feeneyite missionaries like Archbishop Lefebvre borne far greater fruits?
Again, you choose to side with Cardinal Cushing, against Fr. Feeney. You make Fr. Feeney out to be the heretic for REPEATING the dogma. How you can justify this I do not know. Cardinal Cushing was the driving force behind all the false accusations leveled against Fr. Feeney - - -and we KNOW the cardinal was the enemy BY HIS FRUITS.
Prior to Cardinal Cushing, .001% of Catholics never even knew about a BOD - while 99.999% knew that without the Sacrament you could not be saved.
It's because you try foolishly to scrutinize what you should accept in humility. It is like saying the Holy Trinity contradicts the "clear dogma" of monotheism therefore you won't accept it. Exactly like it, it is unenlightened and even terribly darkened reasoning, because the threefold baptism is Trinitarian and does not contradict the one baptism. This is wonderfully explained by St. Catherine based on the epistle and the Gospel of St. John the Apostle, where it is written of the water, the spirit and the blood, the three are one just as in the same passage it is written the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, the Three are One.
The same challenge is offered to you, here is your opportunity.......why are you not jumping at this opportunity? Once again.............
Here is your big chance to justify your belief using defined dogma, prove BOD using the below canon from Trent - or admit BOD is an addition or exception to defined dogma already:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
-
The root reason is you do not the have the spirit of the Saints which delighted in submission to the Magisterium.
The magisterium has not decided on the issue. It has not condemned any of the Church Fathers. It has not even condemned the so-called Feeneyites which are in union with Rome. None of the teachers of EENS as it is written were ever condemned in the 1800's when the USA catechisms started to teach baptism of desire.
The truth is that you keep bringing out the "magisterium" card, because your whole illogical edifice is built on a host of disconnnected theological speculations. You have no clear dogma. Every time the Church has defined on the subject of baptism, they never mention, or even exclude the part about BOD.
Trent did not define it or teach it. However, it does clearly teach John 3:5 as it is written, and defines it dogmatically.
The Catechism of Trent does not teach BOD. On the other hand again, it clearly teaches John 3:5 as it is written, and explains it clearly.
-
Stubborn, you and bowler are different. You may use him for support, but he at least acknowledges explicit and implicit desire (at least from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus), though he is totally against implicit faith.
way to go, hijacking bowler's original thread which only focused on implicit faith to BOD in general. Very typical of Feeneyites ignoring critical distinctions!
The original topic ended with a conclusion, since the discussion was between people who reject implicit faith, and it was just a matter of answering the question of whether implicit faith is taught in the 1949/1952 letter. We concluded the discussion here with these two postings and the thread was dead and over:
It has been already answered. Do read carefully.
Is he saying that supernatural faith would have to include as a minimum belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation?
Yes. "Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation."
AND thus he is saying that the 1949/1952 letter does not teach implicit faith?
Yes. "It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation"
Msgr. Fenton continues,
True and supernatural faith, we must remember, is not a mere readiness to believe, but an actual belief, the actual acceptance as certainly true of definite teachings which have actually been revealed supernaturally by God to man.
Furthermore, this salvific and supernatural faith is an acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines, but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the authority of God who has revealed them to man.
and my amswer:
OK, thanks. However, Let's keep in mind that that is Fr. Fenton's take on the purposely ambiguous 1949/1952 letter. Good for him. However, let's keep in mind the reality that the 1+ billion Catholics today, including the theologians believe that it teaches implicit faith.
The 1949/1952 fallible letter is a "Vatican II like ambiguous" docuмent that requires interpretation, and they can't come to an agreement whether it teaches implicit faith or not. They can't agree on the meaning of a docuмent that is supposed to explain something definitively. Fr. Fenton's explanation is akin to Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson's explanation of how Vatican II should be interpreted in light of tradition. No one but a few trads agree with him, so, what good has it done?
Anyhow, good for Fr. Fenton, at least he is sound there.
---------------------------------
Moving on with Fr. Fenton (and St. Thomas Aquinas), how is it possible that God can teach someone the difficult mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't teach them that they need to be baptized to be saved? That makes no sense. He can enlighten their minds internally to understand and accept difficult myteries when taught to them by a preacher, or he can actually teach them completely internally without a preacher to teach them (St. Thomas teaching)> However, He can't teach them to get baptized. According to BODers the sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means of justification, and salvation, but baptism of desire is the extraordinary. What is so extraordinary about telling a person that they need to be baptized?
So, as you see, it was I who changed the course, from the implicit faith
discussion, which was concluded, and went on to discuss St. Thomas's implicit desire which does require a beilef in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
My posts that follow from there are all about implicit desire of STA. Like Stubborn, I don't believe in it. I don't see it as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in STA's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with there incesant adamant fight against strict EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD, because if they really believed STA's BOD like say St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they would oppose the teaching, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri did.
-
Your view on Trent is a brazen novelty, which you ignore on a false pretext. The Catholic Church is a Church of Tradition and novelties like yours easily stand out. Trent taught baptism of desire and no one has ever said otherwise until Fr. Feeney.
Nonsense. The teachings of the Fathers came before baptism of desire of St. Thomas, it can't be a novelty. You have no common sense.
In all her dogmatic decrees on the subject of EENS and baptism, the Church has not condemned the constant teaching of the Fathers that John 3:15 is to be taken lierally.
Again:
I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS.
Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.
- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church some how.
-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven
- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.
- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.
- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire
- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.
- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.
I could go on and on.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in
the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to
say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the
obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely
enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
-
My posts that follow from there are all about implicit desire of STA. Like Stubborn, I don't believe in it. I don't see it as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in STA's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with there incesant adamant fight against strict EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD, because if they really believed STA's BOD like say St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they would oppose the teaching, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri did.
Here is St. Alphonsus Ligouri teaching the proper way about STA's BOD. He is clearly here teaching against what everyone today believes that BOD saves Protestants and other schismatics and heretics, Jews, Mohamedans, all non-Catholics, even the invisible ignorant. I don't see ONE so-called defender of STA's BOD teaching this way, not a ONE!
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGOURI REJECTED IMPLICIT FAITH
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians 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. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)
He who goes to Hell, goes of his own accord. Everyone who is damned, is damned because he wills his own damnation. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)
4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)
-
Stubborn, I will answer you but don't duck, dodge or evade the question. Tell me frankly and honestly what you think about the "Feeneyites" and their fruits.
I don't side with Archbishop Cushing, I think Fr. Feeney was a good priest who made a mistake on this point and should have gone to Rome and talked to the Pope and readily accepted correction on it. I certainly side with Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office and make no apology for it.
In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII taught, as Pope Pius IX had said earlier and in the First Vatican Council, on the ordinary Magisterium,
"Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of which it is also correct to say: 'He who hears you, hears Me.(Lk 10:16)"
Your reasoning is fallacious. It seems to go something like this, I say seems because otherwise the conclusion you trumpet simply does not follow even if the premise is granted that BOD is not a dogma.
1. We are obliged only to believe dogmas.
2. BOD is not a dogma.
3. Therefore, we are not obliged to believe BOD.
Is this accurate?
Now, 1 is condemned but even 2 need not be granted.
In contrast, I offer two syllogisms for you.
1. We are obliged to believe not only extraordinary pronouncements but also ordinary magisterial teaching. (Pius IX, Pius XII etc)
2. BOD is taught by the ordinary magisterium and by all Catechisms (including those that by your own source have at least the authority of a dogmatic Encyclical) to the faithful (again Pius IX, Pius XII Magisterium; Trent, Baltimore, St. Pius X Catechisms etc)
3. Therefore, we are obliged to believe BOD as a Catholic doctrine even if not a dogma
Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.
And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.
1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.
This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible.
It is laughable for Bowler to say he agrees with St. Alphonsus. If you dared assert what you have here, before St. Alphonsus, he would lock you up while he always allowed for the other opinion while expressing his disagreement and arguing against it as a permitted opinion in the Church.
What you have written about him above in your reply to QVP is just sheer nonsense. He allowed the other opinion while arguing against it just like all good Thomistic theologians do while he would certainly have vigorously condemned your false and impious opinion against BOD.
Here is Richard Ibranyi describing him and confirming this, showing how empty and false your accusation is,
Alphonsus de Liguori was a salvation heretic for presenting a heretical and apostate opinion as allowable, probable, and hence acceptable ... Alphonsus puts forward as allowable, possible, and hence acceptable, the heretical opinion that during the New Covenant era certain men with the use of reason can be sanctified and saved without explicit belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity
Besides repeating your own answered postings, you get your education, arguments and articles from these men, dogmatic sedevacantist Feeneyites who regard everyone, yourself included as a "salvation heretic", and you think you can avoid their conclusions, you are like those St. Pius X wrote about, men who are in no way able to draw from premises truly inevitable conclusions.
-
Stubborn, I will answer you but don't duck, dodge or evade the question. Tell me frankly and honestly what you think about the "Feeneyites" and their fruits.
I already posted a few times that I do not know what to make of their *lack* of fruits - as I see it. Which is why I asked before - what are their fruits? IMO, their fruits do not seem good as they have gone the way of FSSP and compromised with the modernists - -but I do not know that whole story.
Aside from that, there is no reason to continually sidestep the challenge.
We know infallible definitions are without even the slightest possibility of error.
We know saints do not enjoy that distinction and can therefore be wrong - as St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception.
We know the whole magisterium together can be wrong - V2 and the NO proves this.
Start with what is certainly free from error and go from there. If BOD truly is de fide, then prove it using certainly infallible declarations or canons - or admit BOD is an addition or exception to defined dogma once and for all.
-
Never mind, bowler; you really are a sly one, pretending all this time to be not a Feeneyite when you were so all along, only a sympathizer. Very deceitful of you, IMHO.
Stubborn, repeating a question already answered does lots of harm to your cause since you can't even seem to answer Nishant's question, except with the same question, which begs the question. How does BOD make baptism optional?
-
QVP, you must first understand why this canon is even there in the first place - the reason is that the canon is teaching infallibly about the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. The canon is not teaching about the necessity of desiring the sacraments for salvation. If you read it in the correct context, you will have to admit your misunderstanding is obvious.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous;
Here above, we see plainly the sacraments of the New Law are necessary, not superfluous.
Now read what the rest of the cannon teaches...........
[If anyone says the sacraments are not necessary] and [say] that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema."
Now that you've hopefully read this canon in it's correct context, if you still choose to believe it teaches BOD then you fool only yourself.
I see, so St. Alphonsus, of whom Pius VII said his writings were free from any dogmatic error, goes against defined dogma (basically calling him heretical) when saying BOD is de fide, using the same canon? Whatever! :rolleyes:
Not one saint or theologian since Trent (including the mover to finish it, St. Charles Borromeo) has ever said BOD contradicts EENS, except you, bowler, and Fr. Feeney. St. Charles Borromeo, for heavens' sake, composed the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and yet you say he goes against defined dogma too, by saying catechumens can be saved when they die through no fault of their own without receiving baptism? A few years after the Council, and already St. Charles goes against defined dogma by publishing a catechism of an ecuмenical council that preaches explicit BOD? Again, whatever! Yours and bowler's logic are shot through with fallacies. You just can't admit that you call all BODers heretics, just as Richard and the Dimond brothers have.
-
Nishant asked: Tell me frankly and honestly what you think about the "Feeneyites" and their fruits.
The believers in EENS as it is written are not a group, therefore, it is silly to gauge their fruits by a chapel in New England and another in New Hampshire (the Feenyites)? That is just the enemies trying to reduce their opponents to a insignifant few, like a cult. Your opposition is the Fathers, the clear dogmas, and your own illogical conflicts with the clear dogmas. The numbers that opposes you is larger than the SSPX membership and growing every day, and only because they have truth and logic on their side. What are the fruits of EENSers?
- If it wasn't for them all of you would believe in implicit faith as the 20th century USA catechisms have been teaching you for over 100 years now.
- a large chunk of you would not be against ecuмenism
- a large chunk of you would not be sedevacantes, you'd be following "the magisterium"
- a large chunk would be following Vatican II
In short without the EENSers a large chunk of you would have been slow boiled to believe anything. Which by the way you already do by believing that the clear dogmas have to be interpreted by theologians. If you didn't have the EENSers telling you otherwise, you would have swallowed the camel big time.
Here is the problem I have with you people who believe in the BOD of St. Thomas of Aquinas, you don't do anything with it. If you did something with it, you would be writing as St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You are lukewarm, you are salt that has lost its flavor. Even worse, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers attacking the "Feeneyites". That is the problem.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth". (Apco 3:16)
My posts that follow from there are all about implicit desire of STA. Like Stubborn, I don't believe in it. I don't see it as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in STA's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with there incesant adamant fight against strict EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD, because if they really believed STA's BOD like say St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they would oppose the teaching, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri did.
Here is St. Alphonsus Ligouri teaching the proper way about STA's BOD. He is clearly here teaching against what everyone today believes that BOD saves Protestants and other schismatics and heretics, Jews, Mohamedans, all non-Catholics, even the invisible ignorant. I don't see ONE so-called defender of STA's BOD teaching this way, not a ONE!.....
-
Sorry, bowler, you don't know what St. Alphonsus believed if you think he condemned implicit faith. He disagreed with it, as Nishant already showed, for sure, but he didn't condemn it, unlike some people around here, arrogating to themselves the power of the Church to bind others to their own fallible interpretations.
-
Never mind, bowler; you really are a sly one, pretending all this time to be not a Feeneyite when you were so all along, only a sympathizer. Very deceitful of you, IMHO.
I've told you many times that you would do yourself a great favor by posting the actual quotes before you write. What you wrote above is a total strawman. Not one person on CI does not know that I'm an EENSer as it is written.
-
Sorry, bowler, you don't know what St. Alphonsus believed if you think he condemned implicit faith. He disagreed with it, as Nishant already showed, for sure, but he didn't condemn it, unlike some people around here, arrogating to themselves the power of the Church to bind others to their own fallible interpretations.
Like I told you before, if the clear words of St. alphonsus Ligouri do not convince you, then nothing I say will. No matter what you say you are, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers.
-
Never mind, bowler; you really are a sly one, pretending all this time to be not a Feeneyite when you were so all along, only a sympathizer. Very deceitful of you, IMHO.
I've told you many times that you would do yourself a great favor by posting the actual quotes before you write. What you wrote above is a total strawman. Not one person on CI does not know that I'm an EENSer as it is written.
You said you didn't believe in BOD in general, did you not by changing the direction of the thread from implicit faith to BOD in general?
-
Sorry, bowler, you don't know what St. Alphonsus believed if you think he condemned implicit faith. He disagreed with it, as Nishant already showed, for sure, but he didn't condemn it, unlike some people around here, arrogating to themselves the power of the Church to bind others to their own fallible interpretations.
Like I told you before, if the clear words of St. alphonsus Ligouri do not convince you, then nothing I say will. No matter what you say you are, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers.
Clear words which don't condemn implicit faith, unlike your erroneous interpretation. Nishant already showed the whole quote, and you twist it to make it suit your argument. Not a good way of making arguments.
-
Sorry, bowler, you don't know what St. Alphonsus believed if you think he condemned implicit faith. He disagreed with it, as Nishant already showed, for sure, but he didn't condemn it, unlike some people around here, arrogating to themselves the power of the Church to bind others to their own fallible interpretations.
Like I told you before, if the clear words of St. alphonsus Ligouri do not convince you, then nothing I say will. No matter what you say you are, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers.
Clear words which don't condemn implicit faith, unlike your erroneous interpretation. Nishant already showed the whole quote, and you twist it to make it suit your argument. Not a good way of making arguments.
What erroneous interpretation? Who needs an interpretation the words themselves are clear. Nishant showed the whole quote? I quoted St. Alphonsus like 10 times, you are in denial. AND you are defending implicit faith!!!!! Amazing. This confirms what I said before:
My posts that follow from there are all about implicit desire of STA. Like Stubborn, I don't believe in it. I don't see it as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in STA's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with there incesant adamant fight against strict EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD , because if they really believed STA's BOD like say St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they would oppose the teaching, like St. Alphonsus Ligouri did.
Here is St. Alphonsus Ligouri teaching the proper way about STA's BOD. He is clearly here teaching against what everyone today believes that BOD saves Protestants and other schismatics and heretics, Jews, Mohamedans, all non-Catholics, even the invisible ignorant. I don't see ONE so-called defender of STA's BOD teaching this way, not a ONE!
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGOURI REJECTED IMPLICIT FAITH
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)
4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)
-
Here is the problem I have with people "who say" they believe in the BOD of St. Thomas of Aquinas, They don't do anything with it. If they did something with it, they would be writing as St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You are lukewarm, you are salt that has lost its flavor. Even worse, you are in bed with the implicit faith'ers attacking the "Feeneyites". That is the problem.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth". (Apco 3:16)
-
QVP, you must first understand why this canon is even there in the first place - the reason is that the canon is teaching infallibly about the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. The canon is not teaching about the necessity of desiring the sacraments for salvation. If you read it in the correct context, you will have to admit your misunderstanding is obvious.
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous;
Here above, we see plainly the sacraments of the New Law are necessary, not superfluous.
Now read what the rest of the cannon teaches...........
[If anyone says the sacraments are not necessary] and [say] that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema."
Now that you've hopefully read this canon in it's correct context, if you still choose to believe it teaches BOD then you fool only yourself.
I see, so St. Alphonsus, of whom Pius VII said his writings were free from any dogmatic error, goes against defined dogma (basically calling him heretical) when saying BOD is de fide, using the same canon? Whatever! :rolleyes:
Not one saint or theologian since Trent (including the mover to finish it, St. Charles Borromeo) has ever said BOD contradicts EENS, except you, bowler, and Fr. Feeney. St. Charles Borromeo, for heavens' sake, composed the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and yet you say he goes against defined dogma too, by saying catechumens can be saved when they die through no fault of their own without receiving baptism? A few years after the Council, and already St. Charles goes against defined dogma by publishing a catechism of an ecuмenical council that preaches explicit BOD? Again, whatever! Yours and bowler's logic are shot through with fallacies. You just can't admit that you call all BODers heretics, just as Richard and the Dimond brothers have.
:facepalm:
-
Ridiculous. You're all over the map. You don't understand how theological study proceeds in the Church, that's why the notion of arguing in favor of a theological position while not condemning those who hold the other permissible opinion, which is how all theology proceeds, is completely lost on you.
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
So the difference in these two opinions is only theoretical and not practical and doesn't affect missionary work.
Again, you don't realize the difference between these Catholic theologians and modernist liberals, nobody has perhaps spelled it out for you - the latter deny the necessity of precept, they deny that people are to be actively sought out, evangelized, taught about Christ, baptized and commanded on His authority to enter the Church.
And that is the real problem, that is indifferentism, that is liberalism, and it has nothing to do with BOD for the invincibly ignorant who live where the Church has not yet been established who have never had the opportunity to ask for baptism.
Archbishop Lefebvre, whom you attack as an "implicit faither" (blah) and even a liberal, very charitably and falsely, was a far greater missionary than modern BOD attacking Feeneyites ever have or ever will be.
-
And Stubborn, even under your false criteria of rejecting ordinary Magisterial teaching, a criterion which is false and impious and totally opposed to the Syllabus and other Popes, I gave you an example of an answer to your "challenge". Slightly edited.
Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.
And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.
1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.
This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible in itself.
-
And Stubborn, even under your false criteria of rejecting ordinary Magisterial teaching, a criterion which is false and impious and totally opposed to the Syllabus and other Popes, I gave you an example of an answer to your "challenge". Slightly edited.
Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.
And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.
1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.
This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible in itself.
Are #1-4 written by St. Alphonsus Ligouri or your interpretation?
Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who dies before he can be baptized, which is BOD of the catechumen. Trent says nothing about justification by implicit desire.
-
Are you so blind as to read Nishant's earlier post:
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
-
You don't understand how theological study proceeds in the Church....
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
O yeah, that answers all of the inconsistencies detailed below! NOT.
Just a bunch of non-quotes and #'s. Post all of those opinions or it's just useless jibberish.
I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS.
Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.
- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church some how.
-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven
- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.
- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.
- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire
- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.
- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.
I could go on and on.
-
Invented inconsistencies is what you specialize in bowler. bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials. No one is saying God can't imbue other knowledge; all that BODers say is the probable minimum, not what God actually does! God is not required to do miracles of physical or moral nature!
So when Trent says the sacraments or the desire for them suffices, it isn't really saying so? One can turn the tables on you, such as this!
-
Invented inconsistencies is what you specialize in bowler. bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials.
That is the second time you have detracted against my character with the same misunderstanding. There is not ONE person on CI that believes that I am a BODer. It is only you that came up with that conclusion.
-
Invented inconsistencies is what you specialize in bowler. bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials.
That is the second time you have detracted against my character with the same misunderstanding. There is not ONE person on CI that believes that I am a BODer. It is only you that came up with that conclusion.
Misunderstanding? Your denial of BOD is simple Feeneyism. And yet you denied you were a Feeneyite! You may have some superficial differences with him, but you have the same attitude toward non-infallible teaching: ignoring it as though it were optional or even against defined dogma! And you have the same conclusion: denial of BOD.
And again, your sophisms are quite easy to see for any person truly open to the truth!
-
So when Trent says the sacraments or the desire for them suffices, it isn't really saying so? One can turn the tables on you, such as this!
There you go again "telling us" what Trent says, rather than posting what Trent actually says, posting the quote itself.
No, you can't "turn the tables" on me, because if you really did, I would follow the clear truth. Trent does not anywhere say that "the sacraments or the desire for them suffices". Post the whole quote and you'll see that it further proves the case for the Fathers, that one must be baptized to be saved.
-
There you go again "telling us" what Trent says, rather than posting what Trent actually says, posting the quote itself.
No, you can't "turn the tables" on me, because if you really did, I would follow the clear truth. Trent does not anywhere say that "the sacraments or the desire for them suffices". Post the whole quote and you'll see that it further proves the case for the Fathers, that one must be baptized to be saved.
"The pot calling the kettle black" argument, eh? You keep on telling us how Trent is to be interpreted, that BOD is condemned since BOD teaches baptism optional for salvation (like Stubborn), blah blah blah.
-
Invented inconsistencies is what you specialize in bowler. bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials.
That is the second time you have detracted against my character with the same misunderstanding. There is not ONE person on CI that believes that I am a BODer. It is only you that came up with that conclusion.
Misunderstanding? Your denial of BOD is simple Feeneyism. And yet you denied you were a Feeneyite! You may have some superficial differences with him, but you have the same attitude toward non-infallible teaching: ignoring it as though it were optional or even against defined dogma! And you have the same conclusion: denial of BOD.
And again, your sophisms are quite easy to see for any person truly open to the truth!
You didn't say that I denied being a "Feeneyite", you said "bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials".
Feeneyite is a perjorative, a term of abuse, a derogatory term it connotes negativity and expresses contempt, distaste, a name slur that involves a insulting or disparaging innuendo. In that way the Fathers of the Church that I follow, and many other fine teachers from South America and Spain can be redefined as a group of people considered to be theologically ignorant hicks. No, I don't accept your insults.
You'd be an ignorant untraveled man if you thought that everyone in the world who believes in EENS & John 3:15 as it is written forst learned their belief from a priest in Boston.
-
Your method is identical to Fr. Feeney's, except you claim to have the support of the Fathers, whereas he admitted the Fathers were against him. "Fine teachers etc." don't add to you pontificating about theology as if you were an expert.
I'm sticking with Feeneyite. You don't necessarily have to get your ideas from him, but they are more or less identical. It's the basic rigorist approach of EENS = only water-baptized Catholics go to Heaven.
-
There you go again "telling us" what Trent says, rather than posting what Trent actually says, posting the quote itself.
No, you can't "turn the tables" on me, because if you really did, I would follow the clear truth. Trent does not anywhere say that "the sacraments or the desire for them suffices". Post the whole quote and you'll see that it further proves the case for the Fathers, that one must be baptized to be saved.
"The pot calling the kettle black" argument, eh? You keep on telling us how Trent is to be interpreted, that BOD is condemned since BOD teaches baptism optional for salvation (like Stubborn), blah blah blah.
Childish response.
If you are going to shoot, then shoot. Don't talk. (Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvSZ_HQmZgQ
(post the quote from Trent like I said).
-
I have a question for bowler. Bowler, do you believe that one can be justified without Baptism but one can not be saved without Baptism? Or do you believe that one can neither be justified nor saved without Baptism?
-
Childish response.
If you are going to shoot, then shoot. Don't talk. (Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvSZ_HQmZgQ
(post the quote from Trent like I said).
I already did, countless times, to you and Stubborn. And you ignore it, saying it was taken out of context. There's just no convincing any Feeneyites!
And BTW way to use an immoral movie (which I admittedly used to like, but hate now)!
-
Childish response.
If you are going to shoot, then shoot. Don't talk. (Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvSZ_HQmZgQ
(post the quote from Trent like I said).
I already did, countless times, to you and Stubborn. And you ignore it, saying it was taken out of context.
You have done nothing of the sort. I've posted my material dozens of times rather than say I already posted it. You rarely post any quotes.
-
I have a question for bowler. Bowler, do you believe that one can be justified without Baptism but one can not be saved without Baptism? Or do you believe that one can neither be justified nor saved without Baptism?
I don't believe one can be pre-sanctified and then die before he is baptized. Whether one can be pre-sanctified before baptism or not is another story. And remember, if Trent is talking about justification by desire, it is only talking about explicit desire, not implicit! The implicit BOD'ers and Implicit Faith'ers have then NOTHING in Trent!
The explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen believers ask the ridiculous question: What happens to a catechumen who is sanctified before baptism, but dies by accident un-baptized? BOD is their answer. But the question is a strawman, because what God started, he can easily complete.
(It's by far more difficult for God to bring people back from the dead just to be baptized, and God has done it hundreds of recorded times!)
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
This Canon is on the sacrament of baptism, that is the subject and title of the Session. It is very clear that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism of desire (BOD) is not a sacrament!
--------------------------
CANON 2.-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.
This is very clear too, and concurs with the Canon 5 above.
---------------------------------------
Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General
Canon IV. 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
(The heading of this Session is sacraments in General. That means all seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, penance, communion, matrimony, extreme unction, and the priesthood. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so please refrain from salivating at the sight of the word “desire”. One can’t become a priest or be married “by desire”.)
This says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. It also says that not all are necessary for every individual, therefore, at least one is necessary for salvation. this one can only be the sacrament of baptism, since that's exactly what the two Canons on the sacrament of baptism say.
The three canons concur with each other perfectly and clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, the proponents of BOD of the catechumen, ask the speculative question:
What happens to a catechumen:
1)who is sanctified by God before being baptized,
2)then dies unexpectedly,
3)while still in a state of grace,
4)without anyone around to baptize him?
This is total speculation, theory, supposition, and guesswork. What are the chances of such a possibility? Here's additional comments concerning points 1,2,3, and 4 above:
1) Lets say a person potentially can be sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, that Trent has said so, however, how long before baptism? It maybe one second before the water hits his head. If a person is sanctified one second before baptism.
2)3)4)- no one dies unexpectedly to God. Why would God sanctify someone, then take his life before anyone can baptize him?
The only answer to the speculative question above, that would fulfill all the requirements of Trent touched on by this question, is that, every person sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, will be baptized. They cannot die unbaptized, God would not allow them to die. No such person has ever existed or will ever exist. This is what St. Augustine meant by:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
I don't believe one can be pre-sanctified and then die before he is baptized. Whether one can be pre-sanctified before baptism or not is another story.
Thank you for explaining your position.
-
You have done nothing of the sort. I've posted my material dozens of times rather than say I already posted it. You rarely post any quotes.
Then you are very blind. I and Nishant had to post the same quotes time and again. I posted Trent on the Sacraments in general that even Stubborn found repeated twice. I won't be bothered to quote them again just because you're so lazy to look for them.
-
Pot calling the kettle black indeed, QVP. I don't think Bowler sees the incredible irony of accusing us of what he does. Here is typical Feeneyite blah about reinterpretations and misunderstandings.
But, in fact, this is an incorrect interpretation of his writings ... Very many people throughout the centuries ... But this brings us to Trent, and yet another Ambrose-Augustine style misunderstanding
:facepalm:
This overthrows the faith completely.
Here is another "challenge" for such Feeneyites and deniers of the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire. Simply hand over to say 100 children their Catechisms whether of Trent, Baltimore or Pope St. Pius X's. Don't feed them your own "interpretations" and "misunderstandings". You don't even need to tell them that all the faithful before Father Feeney always understood baptism of desire from these Catechisms and no one ever thought to deny it.
If you really think as Bowler (and he keeps fluctuating back and forth on this, because he himself knows the reality, but just above he said, "The Catechism of Trent does not teach BOD") does these Catechisms do not teach BOD even in the particular case of those who die desiring baptism, do this.
I guarantee that at least 99 out of 100 such persons of the lay faithful instructed from these Catechisms will believe truly in the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire.
The one exception only because you might confuse that poor unfortunate soul with your own "reinterpretations" and "misunderstandings" into denying this teaching.
If you can't do this, have the honesty to admit the Roman Catechism flatly refutes you, Bowler.
-
And Stubborn, even under your false criteria of rejecting ordinary Magisterial teaching, a criterion which is false and impious and totally opposed to the Syllabus and other Popes, I gave you an example of an answer to your "challenge". Slightly edited.
Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.
And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.
1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.
This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible in itself.
Using Trent as the basis for BOD is wrong to start with because Trent was not defining BOD, it was defining the necessity of the sacrament. If BODers can not accept this fact, then they are pretty much stuck in the mud right up to the frame.
Reading the rest of the cannon, it teaches and plainly declares that whoever says that men can be justified without the sacrament, or that men can be justified through the desire of them, are, in fact, anathema.
According to the canon, men are not even justified without the sacrament or the desire of them - much less saved. If you say that men can be justified without the sacrament "or the desire of them", then you are anathema. That is what it says about the sacrament.
I mean, it is written plainly right there - read it - read what is written already..........
[If anyone says the sacraments are not necessary] and [say] that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema."
-
You have done nothing of the sort. I've posted my material dozens of times rather than say I already posted it. You rarely post any quotes.
Then you are very blind. I and Nishant had to post the same quotes time and again. I posted Trent on the Sacraments in general that even Stubborn found repeated twice. I won't be bothered to quote them again just because you're so lazy to look for them.
The blind man is you, for I posted the quote that you are claiming teaches BOD:
I have a question for bowler. Bowler, do you believe that one can be justified without Baptism but one can not be saved without Baptism? Or do you believe that one can neither be justified nor saved without Baptism?
I don't believe one can be pre-sanctified and then die before he is baptized. Whether one can be pre-sanctified before baptism or not is another story. And remember, if Trent is talking about justification by desire, it is only talking about explicit desire, not implicit! The implicit BOD'ers and Implicit Faith'ers have then NOTHING in Trent!
The explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen believers ask the ridiculous question: What happens to a catechumen who is sanctified before baptism, but dies by accident un-baptized? BOD is their answer. But the question is a strawman, because what God started, he can easily complete.
(It's by far more difficult for God to bring people back from the dead just to be baptized, and God has done it hundreds of recorded times!)
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
This Canon is on the sacrament of baptism, that is the subject and title of the Session. It is very clear that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism of desire (BOD) is not a sacrament!
--------------------------
CANON 2.-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.
This is very clear too, and concurs with the Canon 5 above.
---------------------------------------
Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General
Canon IV. 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
(The heading of this Session is sacraments in General. That means all seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, penance, communion, matrimony, extreme unction, and the priesthood. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so please refrain from salivating at the sight of the word “desire”. One can’t become a priest or be married “by desire”.)
This says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. It also says that not all are necessary for every individual, therefore, at least one is necessary for salvation. this one can only be the sacrament of baptism, since that's exactly what the two Canons on the sacrament of baptism say.
The three canons concur with each other perfectly and clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, the proponents of BOD of the catechumen, ask the speculative question:
What happens to a catechumen:
1)who is sanctified by God before being baptized,
2)then dies unexpectedly,
3)while still in a state of grace,
4)without anyone around to baptize him?
This is total speculation, theory, supposition, and guesswork. What are the chances of such a possibility? Here's additional comments concerning points 1,2,3, and 4 above:
1) Lets say a person potentially can be sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, that Trent has said so, however, how long before baptism? It maybe one second before the water hits his head. If a person is sanctified one second before baptism.
2)3)4)- no one dies unexpectedly to God. Why would God sanctify someone, then take his life before anyone can baptize him?
The only answer to the speculative question above, that would fulfill all the requirements of Trent touched on by this question, is that, every person sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, will be baptized. They cannot die unbaptized, God would not allow them to die. No such person has ever existed or will ever exist. This is what St. Augustine meant by:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
Pot calling the kettle black indeed, QVP. I don't think Bowler sees the incredible irony of accusing us of what he does .
Of course you don't post a quote from me to let everyone know exactly what I accuse you of.
Here is typical Feeneyite blah about reinterpretations and misunderstandings.
This overthrows the faith completely.
This is childish. Now you are posting something I didn't say, plus it is just an excerpt, so we don't know what they are talking about. You are also purposely slurring my name by using a derogatory term to describe me, an insulting, disparaging innuendo (Feeneyite). That is beneath you.
Here is another "challenge" for such Feeneyites and deniers of the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire. Simply hand over to say 100 children their Catechisms whether of Trent, Baltimore or Pope St. Pius X's. ...
I guarantee that at least 99 out of 100 such persons of the lay faithful instructed from these Catechisms will believe truly in the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire..
This is just your opinion. Is this how you interpret clear dogmas, how children understand something without a teacher? You are getting desperate.
-
Simply hand over to say 100 children their Catechisms whether of Trent, Baltimore or Pope St. Pius X's
The Pope Pius X catechism was a local catechism published in Italian in Rome in I think 1907. It was translated to French and someone added the BOD quote that you think it teaches. The English translator translated from the French edition, therefore, the The Pope Pius X catechism contains an adition which is not in the original.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
The Catechism of Trent
Even if one were to concede that the COT teaches that one can be saved without being baptized, the COT is only teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, a theory which is not the problem today. It is not even teaching implicit baptism of desire of St. Thomas Aquinas, which requires belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation! The problem today is not about explicit baptism of desire of a catechumen who dies by accident, which is all this quote from the COT is talking about, if one were to concede that. The problem today is that practically all Catholics believe that a non-Catholic can be saved without being a catechumen, or desiring to be baptized, or desiring to be a Catholic! It is a smokescreen to claim that the COT teaches any BOD.
One can't contradict clear dogmas and even in this case even contradict what the COT itself says clearly elsewhere, with one unclear line from the COT. The way Catholics know thruth is by interpreting unclear quotes according to defined clear dogmas. If the dogmas failed to define, then they have failed in their intended purpose and are useless. We don't interpret infallible dogmas by fallible unclear interpretations. If we did, then all dogmas are useless.
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
In the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so-called terms “three baptisms,” or “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is only one unclear paragraph which says “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness, with which the BODers try to re-interpretdogmas on EENS & baptism and even re-interpret all the clear teachings of the COT itself!
Most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly exluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism. It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
This clearly means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”
The Catechism of Trent also teaches that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be deferred.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Notice that the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all. Also notice that the Catechism declares that the Sacrament is necessary for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation. All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Moreover, the Catechism also teaches that Christians are distinguished from non-Christians by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess the faith.”
Those who assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
-
The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
* 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.
from Lesson 14: On Baptism
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
-
No, Stubborn, you don't get to evade the response to your own challenge by diverting to your misunderstanding of another canon without answering first the passage in Trent St. Alphonsus based his statement that BOD was a dogma on.
Go back and do that, I laid it out in four simple steps for you, and if you want to toss out anathemas, by all means toss them at St. Alphonsus too who taught this after Trent defined the necessity of baptism.
Everybody knows that baptism is necessary, what you don't know is how that has always been understood (Hint: The book that lay on the Altar at Trent next to the Bible may give you a clue, "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"). This is the understanding of all Catholic teachers, who call BOD a dogma or at least a Catholic doctrine, while believing also the necessity of baptism.
And it is always in that same sense in which we must understand this definition (to say otherwise is modernism since it implies the meaning of dogmas change from the way in which it has always been understood), and never resort to a different and novel sense when it is suddenly proposed against what was before this always believed everywhere, which is how we easily recognize your view on that particular canon is a novelty unknown and opposed to all Catholic writers without exception before Fr. Feeney.
Dear Bowler, you don't realize the seriousness of your error, which I still hope you hold in good faith. I generally avoid the term "Feeneyite" because I find it offends those who agree more or less with Fr. Feeney, but it is a convenient shorthand for those who deny BOD and many of those persons call themselves Feeneyites. In any case, if it offends you, I will not use it.
What you accused "BODers" of was "constant interpretation in every detail". Yet that is exactly what you do with Trent, it is you who "constantly interpret every detail" for us, so that you render the Catechism pointless in explaining the faith to the faithful, and in this way you destroy the trust the faithful have in their Catechism, and make a mockery of the sensus catholicus of the fideles who've always understood this passage in the Catechism of Trent correctly and opposed to you.
The Catechism clearly says, There is no danger in the case of adult catechumens who die without water baptism, as there is for infants, because their intention to receive it avails them to grace.
So, on the contrary to what you claimed, this proves not only justification but also salvation, which you have distinguished incorrectly in the first place, since it is talking about catechumens who die.
By the way, what was the point of citing the Baltimore Catechism and explaining it? Do you agree with what you quoted?
-
Dear Bowler, you don't realize the seriousness of your error, which I still hope you hold in good faith.
What is the error?
What you accused "BODers" of was "constant interpretation in every detail". Yet that is exactly what you do with Trent, it is you who "constantly interpret every detail" for us, so that you render the Catechism pointless in explaining the faith to the faithful, and in this way you destroy the trust the faithful have in their Catechism, and make a mockery of the sensus catholicus of the fideles who've always understood this passage in the Catechism of Trent correctly and opposed to you.
What I accused BODers of was of inconsistencies, and interpreting clear dogmatic definitions contrary to "as they are written". If you can find any inconsistency with clear dogma in what I write, let me know.
O yeah, that answers all of the inconsistencies detailed below! NOT.
Just a bunch of non-quotes and #'s. Post all of those opinions or it's just useless jibberish.
I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS.
Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.
- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church somehow.
-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven
- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.
- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.
- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire
- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.
- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.
it is you who "constantly interpret every detail" for us, so that you render the Catechism pointless in explaining the faith to the faithful....The Catechism clearly says, There is no danger in the case of adult catechumens who die without water baptism, as there is for infants, because their intention to receive it avails them to grace.
So, on the contrary to what you claimed, this proves not only justification but also salvation, which you have distinguished incorrectly in the first place, since it is talking about catechumens who die.
I posted the quotes from the catechism, they do not really need any explanation. Yet you here do not post the quote and proceed to give your explanation. Your quote is useless to anyone reading. Are they supposed to take your word for it?
I posted the quotes and I explained how they fit together. If you disagree with what I wrote then you can say exactly where you disagree, identify the quote from Trent, and post your own quotes from Trent.
By the way, what was the point of citing the Baltimore Catechism and explaining it? Do you agree with what you quoted?
You said this below and so I posted quotes from the three sources. I showed you that the original Catechism of Pius X does not teach what you think it does. T showed you that Trent does not mention the three baptisms and teaches John #:15 as it is written, plus more. AND so I also posted the Baltimore Catechism Commentary used by teachers, which although the beginning of teaching the faithful the "three baptisms" is quite different than what you BODers think it taught at the beginning. I added nothing to it, except highlighting.
Here is another "challenge" ... Simply hand over to say 100 children their Catechisms whether of Trent, Baltimore or Pope St. Pius X's. Don't feed them your own "interpretations" and "misunderstandings". ...
I guarantee that at least 99 out of 100 such persons of the lay faithful instructed from these Catechisms will believe truly in the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire.
-
By the way, what was the point of citing the Baltimore Catechism and explaining it? Do you agree with what you quoted?
You said the quote below, and so I posted quotes from the three sources. I showed you that the original Catechism of Pius X in Italian does not say what you think it does. I showed you that the Catechism of Trent does not mention the three baptisms and teaches John #:15 as it is written, plus more. AND so I also posted the Baltimore Catechism Commentary used by teachers, which although the beginning of era of teaching the faithful in the USA the "three baptisms", it still is quite different than what you BODers think it taught at the beginning. I added nothing to it, except highlighting.
Here is another "challenge" ... Simply hand over to say 100 children their Catechisms whether of Trent, Baltimore or Pope St. Pius X's. Don't feed them your own "interpretations" and "misunderstandings". ...
I guarantee that at least 99 out of 100 such persons of the lay faithful instructed from these Catechisms will believe truly in the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire.
-
No, Stubborn, you don't get to evade the response to your own challenge by diverting to your misunderstanding of another canon without answering first the passage in Trent St. Alphonsus based his statement that BOD was a dogma on.
Go back and do that, I laid it out in four simple steps for you, and if you want to toss out anathemas, by all means toss them at St. Alphonsus too who taught this after Trent defined the necessity of baptism.
What, you could not read what was clearly written for yourself?
1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
As I already pointed out, that is not at all what it said - refer to my last post.
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
Again, refer to my last post, Trent declares that if anyone says the sacraments are not necessary and say that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, they are anathema.
If you say one can obtain the grace of justification without the sacraments or if you say that by the desire for the sacraments one may obtain justification, then you are anathema.
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
Correct, we are bound to believe that we cannot obtain justification by desiring the sacraments or without the sacraments themselves because that is justification through faith alone - Trent condemns that.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.
As item #4 proves, using Trent as the basis for BOD is wrong to start with because Trent was not defining BOD, it was defining the necessity of the sacrament. If BODers can not accept this fact, then they are pretty much stuck in the mud right up to the frame.
-
No, I'm well aware of what Baltimore teaches, it is quite standard catechesis. My curiosity was piqued because you cited it and especially by what you highlighted. What, do you actually agree with it?
Now, Protestants are outside the Church. so
Do you think validly baptised Protestant infants are saved?
Do you think Protestants in the circuмstances described can make a perfect act of contrition and die without mortal sin on their souls?
as the passages in Baltimore indicate.
If so, are they saved inside or outside the Church?
Be careful before you answer.
-
By your own words, Stubborn, you condemn St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Pius X, St. Charles Borromeo, etc. as heretics, since you call them anathema for following St. Thomas' teaching! Time is wasted here trying to persuade people too fixed on their only too human ideas, thinking they know better than the Church and condemning others (what else can you call it, if you say you're anathema) as heretics for questioning their interpretations!
-
Good heavens QVP, is that all you have? Do you condemn St. Thomas for his error regarding the Immaculate conception? Please refrain from such puerile ad hominems and admit that if there is such a thing as a BOD as you understand it, it is either an addition or an exception to the dogma because you have not been able to produce it within any definition in any defined dogma.
It cannot be spelled out any clearer or any simpler, I mean honestly, an elementary school child should be able to understand it - just read what is written.
You cannot even give one universal definition for what BOD even is, yet you believe BOD is dogma? You believe BOD was defined by Trent yet all you have is four words ie "or the desire thereof" that you say defines BOD, which is ridiculous in and of itself - but whats worse is that all the while Trent clearly declares that both, without the sacrament - "or the desire thereof" ie or the desire for the sacrament, suffices for the grace of justification - let alone salvation. So there are two things that will not put anyone in the state of justification.......1) no sacrament = no grace of justification and 2) the desire alone of the sacrament = no grace of justification.
No grace of justification = no justification = no salvation.
Can you not see how far off from Trent's meaning your meaning is? Do you not agree that that is one reason why you cannot define what the universal definition for BOD even is?
How difficult is it to understand that per Trent, not only is the sacrament necessary, but that one must also desire the sacrament in order to receive the grace of justification - that is how it is written................as it is written, Unless a man is baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom heaven.
That is how it is written, read what is written.
-
Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.
-
As an aside comment, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer wrote a paper on "Flumenis, Flamenis, et Sanguinis." The next opportunity, discuss this very important matter with the Good Priest, a Son of Mary, Fr. Pfeiffer.
Also, a friend of mine described this humor. What if a seriously ill man is on a hill side with a priest who hands him an empty cup and tells him to run to the bottom of the hill to fetch water and return for Baptism of water. The man runs to the bottom and fills the cup to the brim and whilst returning up the hill to the priest, he dies.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
-
Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.
I wish to issue a compliment to Quo Vadis Petre for his stand.
After a couple hours of reading this entire thread from page 1 to page 31,
I admire your perseverance and fortitude with a wee bit of wisdom (j/k) gifts of the Holy Ghost.
You stood firm in the line of fire and took a beating.
Thank you,
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
-
I believe I shall finally retire now. Much the same old arguments have been rehashed time and again, and no one is budging. The opposition doesn't want to admit that by their erroneous interpretations, they condemn the prime mover of the Council of Trent, St. Charles Borromeo (since he himself edited the Trent Catechism, which was approved by Pope St. Pius V), St. Pius V himself, St. Alphonsus, and other esteemed theologians as heretics, since they are apparently "anathema" for believing in BOD. So with that I bid farewell to this thread.
-
Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.
It is your line of argumentation which is totally wrong, your claim of false syllogisms are unsubstantiated.
You do not know where to begin, yet it is right there - you begin with the dogma, not the desire thereof.
-
Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.
I wish to issue a compliment to Quo Vadis Petre for his stand.
After a couple hours of reading this entire thread from page 1 to page 31,
I admire your perseverance and fortitude with a wee bit of wisdom (j/k) gifts of the Holy Ghost.
You stood firm in the line of fire and took a beating.
Thank you,
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
I must have missed something because I only see Nishant contributing to the other side. Kindly post what QVC said that is has complete quotes from authorities?
-
No, I'm well aware of what Baltimore teaches, it is quite standard catechesis. My curiosity was piqued because you cited it and especially by what you highlighted. What, do you actually agree with it?
Now, Protestants are outside the Church. so
1) Do you think validly baptised Protestant infants are saved?
2) Do you think Protestants in the circuмstances described can make a perfect act of contrition and die without mortal sin on their souls?
as the passages in Baltimore indicate.
If so, are they saved inside or outside the Church?
Be careful before you answer.
I don't have to "be careful" before I answer you, I didn't go over what I posted from the teachers guide to the Baltimore catechism, which I only posted because you mentioned it:
1) A Protestant validly baptized as a child is a member of the Catholic Church till he reaches the age of reason. Same goes for all infants validly baptized in heretical and or shismatical sects. They go straight to heaven if they die as infants, same as any Catholoic.
2) To make a perfect act of contrition, a validly baptized Protestant must want to confess before a Catholic priest his sins, including his sin of heresy and schism. It can be done, but like the Baltimore catechism says it is very difficult to see. However, if it is done right, he is again a Catholic again, just like he was before the age of reason. If the person is sincere in God's eye, God will provide him a priest, so that the difficult perfect act of contrition will not be an obstacle. Moreover, God's grace "can convert these very stones into sons of Abraham", if a person is sincere in God's eye, they will be provided with everything they need to be saved, including a longer life, or even bringing them back from the dead just to be baptized!
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
-
Dear Nishant,
I don't see where you answered this question:
And Stubborn, even under your false criteria of rejecting ordinary Magisterial teaching, a criterion which is false and impious and totally opposed to the Syllabus and other Popes, I gave you an example of an answer to your "challenge". Slightly edited.
Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.
And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.
1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.
This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible in itself.
Are #1-4 written by St. Alphonsus Ligouri or your interpretation?
Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who dies before he can be baptized, which is BOD of the catechumen. Trent says nothing about justification by implicit desire.
-
Dear Nishant,
Perhaps you missed my request?
O yeah, that answers all of the inconsistencies detailed below! NOT.
Just a bunch of non-quotes and #'s. Post all of those opinions or it's just useless jibberish.
You don't honestly expect us to reject our belief in clear dogmas for those #'s, do you?
You don't understand how theological study proceeds in the Church....
“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?
The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…
But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.
O yeah, that answers all of the inconsistencies detailed below! NOT.
Just a bunch of non-quotes and #'s. Post all of those opinions or it's just useless jibberish.
I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS.
Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.
- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church some how.
-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven
- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.
- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.
- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.
- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire
- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.
- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.
I could go on and on.
-
Dear Matthew:
It is revolting to see such heretics posting on this site. Please check this site as we don't need heretics. Leading a Catholic life is difficult at best let alone having to encounter heretics on our beloved site.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
You know our Faith is very simple and Jesus made it simple for us simple folk to gain salvation.
-
whats worse is that all the while Trent clearly declares that both, without the sacrament - "or the desire thereof" ie or the desire for the sacrament, suffices for the grace of justification - let alone salvation. So there are two things that will not put anyone in the state of justification.......1) no sacrament = no grace of justification and 2) the desire alone of the sacrament = no grace of justification
Wow.
This is so confused, so contorted, so muddled and so incorrect that it's little wonder QVP responded as he did.
Trent says justification is not effected without baptism or the desire thereof. Therefore, of
1. Baptism
2. The desire of baptism
either both effect justification or none do. That's what "or" means.
if one effect justification (as Trent teaches), then both effect justification
if one doesn't effect justification (as you claim), then neither effect justification.
Which latter is evidently absurd, so the former is true.
It is justification - the translation from the state of death to the state of grace - that is always necessary.
Remember the case of St. Alphonsus is not comparable, because he affirmed BOD was a dogma after Trent allegedly dogmatically declared it a heresy and opposed to a dogma, which necessarily implies he was a "salvation heretic" as Richard Ibranyi schismatically affirms.
Bowler, your error is you imply God is bound to the sacraments, which is at least erroneous. In this way, you misunderstand or reject Baltimore too, as if God is bound to give to give His graces only through men and through the elements of His creation.
1. In truth, the Thomistic doctrine, approved and affirmed by Pope Pius IX on his own Apostolic Authority, which you reject, is that "God has bound us to the sacraments, while He is not Himself bound to them.
God does this to manifest the excellence of His power, that He is in no way dependent even on a priest as minister or the matter, water in the case of baptism and the confession of sins in penance, to give His grace, and expects us to acknowledge such power and will humbly rather than resist it pertinaciously.
Souls in invincible ignorance can be internally illumined by God and this efficacious virtue enlivened by charity in which the resolve to receive baptism is implicit saves them. This is taught by Pope Pius IX.
2. Scripture and Tradition teach Cornelius was justified before Baptism.
The Catechism of Trent teaches, why bother to quote what we both already know and what you simply reject, “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
3. If we who defended baptism of desire were indifferentists as you imply, we wouldn't bother correcting, God grant always with the proper and necessary patience and charity, your public denial of Catholic doctrine, your rejection of Catechisms and the Ordinary Magisterium and the like, which denial and rejection is, objectively speaking, extremely sinful.
-
Dear Matthew:
It is revolting to see such heretics posting on this site. Please check this site as we don't need heretics. Leading a Catholic life is difficult at best let alone having to encounter heretics on our beloved site.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
You know our Faith is very simple and Jesus made it simple for us simple folk to gain salvation.
If it was only that easy! Unfortunately, only an clear infallible decision from a pope will settle the matter in favor of the school of St. Augustine and the Fathers (the catechumen is not saved) , or the school of St. Thomas (that a non-Catholic can be saved by an explicit or implicit desire for the sacrament of baptism with at least an explicit belief of the Trinity and the Incarnation), or the school of the Salamanca (that a non-Catholic can be saved by implicit faith in a God the rewards). Till then anyone that takes it upon themselves to call the other a heretic, is just voicing his own opinion, actually in my LONG experience, their frustrations at not having the capacity to answer difficult questions posed to them.
-
Bowler, your error is you imply God is bound to the sacraments, which is at least erroneous. In this way, you misunderstand or reject Baltimore too, as if God is bound to give to give His graces only through men and through the elements of His creation.
1. In truth, the Thomistic doctrine, approved and affirmed by Pope Pius IX on his own Apostolic Authority, which you reject, is that "God has bound us to the sacraments, while He is not Himself bound to them.
God does this to manifest the excellence of His power, that He is in no way dependent even on a priest as minister or the matter, water in the case of baptism and the confession of sins in penance, to give His grace, and expects us to acknowledge such power and will humbly rather than resist it pertinaciously.
Souls in invincible ignorance can be internally illumined by God and this efficacious virtue enlivened by charity in which the resolve to receive baptism is implicit saves them. This is taught by Pope Pius IX.
Your analysis is one big strawman. And to top it off you are pontificating your own opinions. Quote authorities, quote dogma.
It is very clear what I believe, and it has nothing to do with your analysis. What I believe I keep repeating over and over (in short):
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
2. Scripture and Tradition teach Cornelius was justified before Baptism.
The Catechism of Trent teaches, why bother to quote what we both already know and what you simply reject, “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
Cornelius was EXACTLY an example of what St. Augustine teaches above, for he was not "snatched from his predestination to be baptized". God sent him an angel to tell Cornelius to send for Peter. God sent an angel and Peter to baptize Cornelius! “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them
3. If we who defended baptism of desire were indifferentists as you imply, we wouldn't bother correcting,
Basically I said that if those people who claim to be strict school of St. Thomas BODers would really be Thomists, they would go after the ALL forms Implicit faithers with same same fanaticism that they go after the strict EENSers. Bottom line is the only people they correct are strict EENSers.
By the way, one of your comments brought me to read some Ibranyi, of whom I know little. It appears that he is a strict Thomist for he calls both strict EENSers and ALL Implicit faithers heretics. He also calls St. Alphonsus Ligouri a heretic ONLY for calling Implicit faith an alternate opinion.
-
whats worse is that all the while Trent clearly declares that both, without the sacrament - "or the desire thereof" ie or the desire for the sacrament, suffices for the grace of justification - let alone salvation. So there are two things that will not put anyone in the state of justification.......1) no sacrament = no grace of justification and 2) the desire alone of the sacrament = no grace of justification
Wow.
This is so confused, so contorted, so muddled and so incorrect that it's little wonder QVP responded as he did.
So long as you do not read the *entire* canon as it is written nor for the purpose it was written, you will continue to believe wrongfully as you do.
Trent says justification is not effected without baptism or the desire thereof. Therefore, of
1. Baptism
2. The desire of baptism
either both effect justification or none do. That's what "or" means.
Your error is that you do not read the canon; 1) as it was written and 2) in it's entirety.
You consistently and purposely reject both the first part of the canon which clearly states the sacrament is necessary *for salvation*, and the the last part of the canon which clearly state the same thing via the words of Our Lord. . . . . ."as it is written, unless etc" while choosing to make "or the desire thereof" into the dogma itself. Why?
Without being contradictory it is not possible in heaven or on earth to claim to believe that Trent declares; 1) that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, 2) that unless a man is born again with water etc. . . . . . . then in the same canon declares; 3) "either that or the desire thereof works too". Aside from it being contradictory to the Nth degree, the canon does not teach such a thing as that.
if one effect justification (as Trent teaches), then both effect justification
if one doesn't effect justification (as you claim), then neither effect justification.
Which latter is evidently absurd, so the former is true.
It is justification - the translation from the state of death to the state of grace - that is always necessary.
Again, you must read what is written and read Trent's definition of: "or the desire thereof" - read what is written...............................
Session VI
Chapter VI
Now they (adults) *are disposed* unto the said justice, (NOTE, they do not yet possess justification, but are merely disposed to justification, they are not yet justified) when, 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; 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 (ie "or the desire thereof") **which must be performed before baptism:** (the underlined is the beginning of "or the desire thereof" being defined, the rest of the definition for "or the desire thereof" from Trent is written below. Up to now, they are only disposed to justification, they are not yet even justified.)
lastly, when they purpose (ie "or the desire thereof") to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition (ie "or the desire thereof") 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.
This is the best possible definition of what Trent declares "or the desire thereof" means from the often quoted Chapter IV of the same session. There can be no definition more accurate because this definition is infallible.
This canon teaches that the desire ("or the desire thereof") 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, *and that the obligation to receive the sacrament of Baptism by water remains.*
What this canon does not teach is that the person possesses justification via "or the desire thereof", nor does this canon teach that "or the desire thereof" rewards salvation.
-
0
-
You know our Faith is very simple and Jesus made it simple for us simple folk to gain salvation.
For a Catholic it is very simple, go to confession to stay in a state of grace till Our Lord calls us.
However, for a non-Catholic it is very difficult, and Catholics telling them that they can be saved without baptism, the Church and confession to stay in a state of grace, is not charitable.
It use to be that a simple Catholic, a simple priest, knew and what these clear words mean. Today they no longer believe words as they are written:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
---------------------------------------------------
Orestes Brownson 1874:
"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize or latitudinize this terrible dogma, "Out of the Church there is no salvation... If we wish to convert Protestants and infidels we must preach in all its rigor the naked dogma. Give them the smallest peg or what appears so, not to you, but to them;--- the smallest peg on which to hang a hope of salvation without being in or actually reconciled to the Church by the sacrament of Penance, and all the arguments you can address to them to prove the necessity of being in the Church in order to be saved will have no more effect on them than rain on a duck's back."