Author Topic: Implicit Faith and the "19491952" Letter (Read 11642 times)

Matto · « **Reply #135 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:05:43 PM »

Quote from: bowler

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.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #136 on:** March 06, 2013, 12:17:49 AM »

Quote from: bowler

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #137 on:** March 06, 2013, 04:56:27 AM »

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.

Quote from: Desire and Deception

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

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #138 on:** March 06, 2013, 08:39:33 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote
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."

bowler · « **Reply #139 on:** March 06, 2013, 08:44:46 AM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Quote from: bowler
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:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Matto
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)

bowler · « **Reply #140 on:** March 06, 2013, 09:10:12 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

bowler · « **Reply #141 on:** March 06, 2013, 09:30:12 AM »

Quote

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,

Quote

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.”

bowler · « **Reply #142 on:** March 06, 2013, 09:45:15 AM »

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #143 on:** March 06, 2013, 11:18:53 AM »

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?

bowler · « **Reply #144 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Dear Bowler, you don't realize the seriousness of your error, which I still hope you hold in good faith.

What is the error?

Quote

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.

Quote from: Bowler

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

bowler · « **Reply #145 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:12:08 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #146 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:25:55 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #147 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:56:18 PM »

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.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #148 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:59:21 PM »

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!

Stubborn · « **Reply #149 on:** March 06, 2013, 08:15:37 PM »

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.