Author Topic: Innocent III Contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus about BoD (Read 4360 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2014, 12:55:03 AM »

There is not enough time in the day to refute the Dimondite errors doing the rounds on this thread. I really do not currently have the means, ability or inclination to refute this all over again, but this thread contains enough temerarious accusations against the Doctors of the Church and the Popes who specifically approved their teaching and made it their own to compel me to respond.

1. First, to the bizarre claim that the Magisterium has never taught that Baptism of Desire supplies the remission of sins but not necessarily the remission of the entire debt of punishment, the other letter (Dz. 388), possibly penned according to some scholars by the same Innocent III clearly teaches this, saying the soul invalidly baptized who was saved by Baptism of Desire is in purgatory, since it is for this reason alone, that prayers are necessary for him.

So what is Innocent III teaching in the letter cited on this thread? He is saying that, this soul will not fall into hell, but will "fly" to heaven. As for "without delay", there was an error that said no soul will enter heaven until the last judgment, but be in an eternal limbo-like state until then. Cardinals and others later than Innocent III fell into that error, and that is what Innocent III appears to be teaching against.

2. Second, it is also indicated in the passage in St. Ambrose. Throughout Christian history, for centuries everyone understood that Valentian was saved by obtaining justification through desire. Fr. Feeney was the first to speculate otherwise, claiming that Valentian had received actual Baptism. But this is disproved by the passage itself, which says that the mysteries were not solemnly celebrated (which in the case of someone actually baptized, they would be), and St. Ambrose prays for his soul at his funeral (which all understood one does not do, either for those actually baptized, or for martyrs), proving again he was in purgatory. Finally, St. Ambrose says "if martyrs are washed in their own blood, his piety and devotedness have washed him also".

3. Third, contrary to Feeneyite absurdities, the Roman Catechism and the Fathers of Trent follow St. Thomas in describing Baptism of Desire almost word for word. Exactly like him, they distinguish between adults and infants, giving the same illustrations and Scriptural examples. They say infants have no other means of salvation than actual Baptism, and so will be lost if they die, thus the danger of dying and going to hell is present. For adults, this same danger is not present, because adults can obtain grace and justice through their intention to receive baptism, combined with repentance for past sins, when it is impossible to be washed in the "salutary waters" of baptism without their own fault. This clearly teaches these persons will not be eternally lost, and thus pre-emptively condemns Feeneyism in all its forms.

4. To the ridiculous but anticipated objection that this is not infallible, it is answered that the Roman Catechism clearly shows us the mind of the Tridentine Fathers. If they taught us there that adult souls can be saved through the desire of baptism, that is obviously what they intended to define in Trent. If only solemn definitions will be admitted, there are two easy proofs of this doctrine from the same.

First, that voto never refers to a disposition in receiving the actual sacrament, voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire. This proves that where Trent talks about the voto of Baptism, it is defining the Baptism of desire. In Trent itself, voto in reference to penance and the Eucharist refers to the perfect contrition and the spiritual communion, as even Feeneyites concede. I challenge anyone to prove that voto ever refers to a disposition anywhere. All your errors come from a lack of knowledge of St. Thomas, or in some cases even of Latin. Pope St. Pius X warns you that you cannot understand even the language in which the Church proposes Her dogmas if you are ignorant of St. Thomas. If you don't know in other words what voto means in St. Thomas, you won't know what it means in Trent.

5. Second, where Trent clearly defines dogmatically that the sacraments necessary for salvation are necessary in fact or in desire. It proscribes that "without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God ... the grace of justification". Clearly proving, again evident in the Latin, that the grace of justification can be received in desire for two sacraments. Again Feeneyites admit this in the case of penance, but absurdly deny the plural proves that the grace of justification can be received through the desire of both sacraments necessary for salvation, namely in Trent baptism and penance.

Again, contrary to the errors above, the Roman Catechism specifically says elsewhere that in penance, we recover the grace of Baptism. Proving once more that the proper grace of Baptism is naught other than the grace of justification. It is a plainly condemned error, in the canons of Trent, that pretends that the grace of justification necessarily and intrinsically remits also the entire debt of punishment. Not even Feeneyites can contest this. After teaching this doctrine in the Roman Catechism, St. Pius V proscribed the errors of the heretic Michael Baius that the remission of sins can only be obtained in the laver of baptism, and that charity in catechumens cannot avail toward this end.

Post-Trent, over a dozen Popes have infallibly declared the doctrine taught in St. Alphonsus' Theologia Moralis to be safe and irreformable, reaffirming also this specific doctrine by their own authority. Pope St. Pius X for example teaches Baptism of Desire is an act of perfect love of God, or contrition, and everybody knows contrition, combined with the desire to do all that God wills - through the operation of the actual sacrament in desire - effects justification but not necessarily the remission of the entire debt of punishment. Hence, those saved by baptism of desire will as a rule go to purgatory.

Cantarella · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2014, 03:38:25 PM »

Quote

Post-Trent, over a dozen Popes have infallibly declared the doctrine taught in St. Alphonsus' Theologia Moralis to be safe and irreformable, reaffirming also this specific doctrine by their own authority. Pope St. Pius X for example teaches Baptism of Desire is an act of perfect love of God, or contrition, and everybody knows contrition, combined with the desire to do all that God wills - through the operation of the actual sacrament in desire - effects justification but not necessarily the remission of the entire debt of punishment. Hence, those saved by baptism of desire will as a rule go to purgatory.

Here lies the Cushing error of believing there are known de facto exceptions to EENS as if we could ever see the dead. Instead of being hypothetical, BOD becomes an "exception to the rule". Only God can possibly know if there are souls ever saved by baptism of desire. What we know is that all are required to enter formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there in only ONE God -revealed Baptism and that of water. No exceptions. There is no particular case of the baptism of desire that we know of in 2014. Neither do we know of any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance.

Cantarella · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2014, 03:55:22 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

2. Second, it is also indicated in the passage in St. Ambrose. Throughout Christian history, for centuries everyone understood that Valentian was saved by obtaining justification through desire. Fr. Feeney was the first to speculate otherwise, claiming that Valentian had received actual Baptism. But this is disproved by the passage itself, which says that the mysteries were not solemnly celebrated (which in the case of someone actually baptized, they would be), and St. Ambrose prays for his soul at his funeral (which all understood one does not do, either for those actually baptized, or for martyrs), proving again he was in purgatory. Finally, St. Ambrose says "if martyrs are washed in their own blood, his piety and devotedness have washed him also".

Saint Ambrose's eulogy for Valentinian can easily be interpreted as something different than Baptism of Desire. Nothing is said about the efficacy of BOD for salvation.

Quote from: St. Ambrose

"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).

Quote

"Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly
celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also."

Nishant · « **Reply #48 on:** August 28, 2014, 01:03:33 AM »

You do not care, then, what over 15 Christian centuries unanimously understood St. Ambrose to mean, you'll just make up another "interpretation" of your own.

Also, you completely missed the point. Ladislaus made the argument that justification when received for the first time must necessarily and intrinsically remit all debt of punishment also, so that a soul justified and saved thus does not go to purgatory. But this is false, and disproven by the passage in Innocent II where St. Ambrose is cited, and correctly understood. The Pope commands that prayers and sacrifices be offered for the deceased person, saved by baptism of desire.

You likewise misunderstood the proof that St. Ambrose' funeral oration is not "easily capable" of other interpretations. First, because, even in the portion you cite, St. Ambrose says if martyrs are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him also. Second, because St. Ambrose actually prays for Valentian's soul, which he would never do if Valentian had just received water baptism, since those baptized on their deathbed go to heaven without purgatory. This proves he was in purgatory, had been saved by the baptism of desire, and not by water baptism, exaclty as traditionally understood. Your novel "interpretations" do not stand.

Likewise, we know of countless martyrs saved by baptism of blood, like St. Emerentiana, so this is no mere hypothetical. The Fathers are unanimous that souls are saved by baptism of blood, and condemn those who doubt the salvific efficacy of the same, among whom you unfortunately wish to include yourself.

Notice carefully what St. Alphonsus says in Theologia Moralis "it is de fide that souls are saved by baptism of desire". No ramblings about "hypotheticals". This is what over a dozen Popes have infallibly approved and commanded to be taught in Catholic seminaries as absolutely safe and irreformable, meaning all Catholics are free to hold and teach it, and none to refuse and condemn it.

Pope St. Pius X follows St. Alphonsus in his Catechism word for word, as Pope St. Pius V follows St. Thomas word for word in the Roman Catechism, as in Trent, but you have no problem attacking and condemning the doctrine taught by them.

You Feeneyites cannot truthfully say, We have only passed on what we received. You cannot say, We have only held the doctrine we were taught. The only thing you can truthfull say would be something along the lines, We made it up as we went along. The very fact that you say "easily capable of interpretations other than" shows that you Feeneyites are reckless innovators, despisers of Tradition and lovers of novelty.

Cantarella · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2014, 02:06:47 AM »

St. Ambrose could have been in fact misunderstood because of political considerations and public tumult. There is an incorrect interpretation that modern theologians, Rahner included, have held in the matter of Valentinian and Baptism of Desire. Many people believed that St. Ambrose said that Valentinian had been saved without passing through the waters of Baptism but this is wrong. St Ambrose did not teach "Baptism of Desire" as proved by the following rectification by St. Ambrose himself:

Quote from: St. Ambrose

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for 'unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace." (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.)

Also,

Quote from: St. Ambrose

For no one ascends into the kingdom of Heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism. Not infants, not anyone hindered by any necessity.

ONE is the Baptism with the Church administers, the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens NEED to be baptized.