Author Topic: Innocent III Contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus about BoD (Read 4359 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #50 on:** August 28, 2014, 04:31:05 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

St. Ambrose elsewhere (cf. quote from Cantarella) taught that not even righteous catechumens can be saved if they die without Baptism. There's some historical evidence to suggest that Valentinian may have been killed precisely for having adopted the orthodox Christian faith, and so it could be that St. Ambrose was speaking about a Baptism of Blood, rather than one of Desire. Finally, you need to recall that, unlike today, where details emerge quickly due to telecommunication, the details surrounding Valentinian's death were probably sketchy at best and weren't known in the beginning. Could it be that there was hope that someone might have baptized him as he lay dying? Any of this could be what St. Ambrose meant. Have you ever stopped to think why the people were weeping bitterly at the news of Valentinian's death if they believed in the Baptism of Desire "dogma"? It's precisely because the same St. Ambrose emphatically taught the necessity of Baptism for salvation, something with almost no one, except for the evil "Feeneyites," REALLY believes anymore despite some hollow lip service they pay because they heard it said somewhere that Catholics are supposed to believe that. St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, were they alive today, would recognize the "Feeneyites" as their fellow Catholics and would denounce the vast majority of Cushingites as Pelagian heretics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** August 28, 2014, 04:32:58 AM »

Even if you think that St. Ambrose meant BoD here, that gives you exactly ONE CHURCH FATHER who held to BoD without subsequent retraction ... as Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner himself admits.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** August 28, 2014, 04:48:13 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

There is not enough time in the day to refute the Dimondite errors doing the rounds on this thread.

I wasn't asking you to do this. I was asking you to limit the discussion to the point made in the OP. We don't need yet another treatise promoting the BoD pseudo-dogma.

So let's address the only place where you respond to the original point.

Quote from: Nisshant

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.

So when he means "without delay", he must have meant, "as opposed to having to wait until the Last Judgment". Complete speculation, pulled out of your posterior, that's an absurd stretch of the obvious meaning of the term "without delay". That's all you've got.

In addition to this passage from Innocent III, you have the syllogism put forward by the Dimond brothers that's never been refuted.

Major: There can be no initial justification without spiritual rebirth. de fide.
Minor: Spiritual rebirth involves (as the term implies) being put into a state wherein nothing can delay entry into heaven (i.e. all sins and punishment due to sin are forgiven). de fide

Conclusion: Initial justification must happen in such a way that all sins and punishment due to sin are forgiven. proxima fidei

Conclusion: St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were wrong. proxima fidei.

But you Cushingites cling with white knuckles and raging clenched teeth to this absurd notion that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus could never have been wrong about anything. Why?

Because, AT THE END OF THE DAY, you've got NOTHING, NIL, NADA, to establish BoD except "authority". I've never seen a single theological argument, not one, ever, which demonstrates how BoD derives from other Catholic doctrine. In addition, there's no Patristic consensus that would show it to have been revealed. Au contraire, you can find about 6-7 Church Fathers who reject it and only one or two who SEEM to hold it. So the Anti-BoD Church Fathers OUTNUMBER the pro-BoD Church Fathers by any count. Yet liars like Fr. Laisney state that there's "unanimous consensus" of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD. Consequently, it's NOTHING BUT SPECULATION. It's made up. Which is why you get a different explanation for it for each person who believes in BoD, 95% of which explanations involve one heresy / error or another. BoD has NO GOOD FRUITS, only BAD FRUITS. There's absolutely nothing to back it up. It's based on a speculation rooted in nothing but emotional considerations. It's pseudo-theology. If God has chosen to save some people this way, then He certainly hasn't revealed it to us through Public Revelation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #53 on:** August 28, 2014, 05:00:56 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

No, it has nothing to do her with making up another "interpretation" of what the saint said at a funeral oration. It is rather that NSAAers doing what they always do - come up with false claims like 15 "Christian" centuries of "unanimously understood".

But, as Br. Francis states, St. Ambrose's funeral oration starts out with:

"But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism....."

Let us stop St. Ambrose at this point and reflect on what was just quoted. All of the faithful that have gathered for the memorial services of the Emperor were grieved. And why were they grieved? St. Ambrose says they were grieved because there was no evidence that the Emperor, who was known to be a catechumen, had been baptized.

Now If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?

The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." - Br. Francis

Why do you argue against the sound reasoning above? Do you just it ignore completely or do you imagine that this universally understood "alternative" was only partially universal? - as if there even is such a thing and that you are certain there really is such a thing as "partially universal"..

Quote from: Nishant

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.

No, that is not his argument at all and I don't know why you even say that. Ladislaus demonstrated that the pope states that BOD sends one immediately to heaven, the other saints state that they go to purgatory first. FYI, that is a contradiction.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.

Again, our not knowing something is not a proof of anything. If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

St. Alphonsus was a Moral Theologian, not a Dogmatic Theologian.

St. Alphonsus also says more than once, that without recourse to Mary that no one is saved.

How does recourse to Mary fit in with a BOD?

St. Alphonsus also says:
"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire."

So how can he say that a BOD, which is No Sacrament At All is de fide, and also say that heretics say that no sacrament is necessary?

Quote from: Nishant

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.

You cannot accept the fact. The fact being that catechisms are text books.
You call John 3:5 novelty. You say the dogma's of the Church do not mean what they say, THEN you say WE are the innovators and lovers of novelty.

Link April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.

You are a Cushingite. You are on his side along with LoE and Ambrose and JAM whoever else fell for the lies of Cushing.

Link April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.”

Ambrose · « **Reply #54 on:** August 30, 2014, 04:48:59 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Great post as usual, Nishant! Let's say a prayer for their conversion so they will hear it.