Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on August 19, 2018, 08:00:01 PM

Title: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 19, 2018, 08:00:01 PM
Ironically, it is Fr. Pfeiffer in this old Angelus Article who points out the common teaching of the Church: Baptism of desire is de fide:

[Here is the link to entire article, in which additional Feeneyite errors are refuted: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm]


"Error II:
The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional
The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."

We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precisionwithin the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth.

He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 19, 2018, 08:21:39 PM
As regards arguing about how much explicit desire suffices for implicit desire, I said this:

"Here is how implicit baptism of desire is distinguished from Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity:”

In describing his theory of "anonymous Christianity," Rahner stated that non-Catholics could have "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision, accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERahner1986207_6-0 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERahner1986207_6-0)

This means that such "anonymous Christians" were ignorant not merely of the obligation to receive the sacrament of baptism, but of the entire Christian revelation.

Consequently, an explicit act of supernatural faith in any particular part of it is not possible...yet salvation is allegedly attained anyway.

The necessary conclusion of Rahner's theory is that a merely natural knowledge and/or act of faith in God (e.g., such as that which is attainable by mere reason alone) suffices to unite one to the Church, and save.

Contrast this with implicit baptism of desire, which requires an explicit act of supernatural faith in someaspect of the true religion:

"Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit, while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit, since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole...In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit, since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence."
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm)

We can see, therefore, that the difference between Rahner's "anonymous Christianity" and implicit baptism of desire is huge:

Rahner posited one could be saved by a faith completelyimplicit, with no explicit act of supernatural faith in even one single aspect of the true religion.

That position is fatal to the missionary apostolate of the Church, and therefore a rejection of Scripture ("Go forth into all nations..."), whereas the Church's teaching of implicit baptism of desire, insofar as it requires theexplicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion, consequently implies the necessity of the missionary apostolate to make such doctrines known (at least in part).

I believe if Feeneyites understood this, they would not (or at least, should not) oppose the doctrine of implicit baptism of desire, which they routinely confuse with "anonymous Christianity," despite the very large difference between the two."

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-by-mgr-williamson-issue-dlxxvii-(577)/90/ 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 20, 2018, 06:38:52 AM
"The idea that an individual died before he was able to receive the Sacrament of Baptism is equally curious, because it is God who determines how long each of us shall live to the second. And it is God Who in His most benevolent Providence grants Baptism to everyone who receives it. Is He a monster (for Whom nothing is impossible or difficult) who instructs certain individuals in the absolute necessity of Baptism, grants them the grace of wishing it, then cuts off their life so that they can never receive it? And then casts them into Hell forever for not having received it? No, on the very contrary. He is an all-loving God, Who most certainly provides to the responsive all that is needful to them. If they are truly desirous of Baptism, if need be, He will provide it, even by a miracle. (It is a miracle to us, but not to Him.) This is what the Scriptures means when it says, "The hand of the Lord is not shortened" (Isaias 59:1)." - Fr. Wathen (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/father-james-wathen-(rip)-against-sedevacantism/msg620945/#msg620945)


Of all the points that testify against a BOD, I think I like this one the best.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2018, 08:39:32 AM
Ironically, it is Fr. Pfeiffer in this old Angelus Article who points out the common teaching of the Church: Baptism of desire is de fide:

Pfeiffer's article has to be one of the worst attempts at theology that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.  It's filled with lies and distortions.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2018, 08:50:02 AM
So let's examine the Johnsonian argument above.

Since Rahner's anonymous Christianity is even more extreme than the implicit BoD taught by some "Catholics", Feeneyites should no longer have any reason to oppos implicit BoD.  [Johnson is actually wrong in his analysis of Rahner, but I'll let the pass for now.]

I have no words for the epicness of this failure.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/1f/26/711f26c0212caf177e6e78ef4769cd54.jpg)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 20, 2018, 09:39:30 AM
The OP continues to post his same basic errors after being corrected many times, he is attempting to construct a building from the top floor down. He first has to personally learn foundations and construction principals before he even begins to talk about a building anything (teaching others anything).

Some examples:

He titles the thread Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism, yet this thread is really totally about salvation by Implicit Faith which he never mentions.  

He starts out by saying baptism of desire is defide. In other threads he has said that implicit desire and implicit baptism of desire are defide. Those are three different theories, which really could mean anything unless they are defined, and he clearly does not know the difference. Basically he is saying that something undefined is defide, "constructing a building from the top floor down".

He says there is a difference between Rahner's teaching and what he believes, and says the difference is "Rahner posited one could be saved by a faith  completely implicit, with no explicit act of supernatural faith in even one single aspect of the true religion", but he never says what this explicit act of supernatural faith in even one single aspect of the true religion is.

Until the OP learns the principles of the subject, he will never begin to build anything



Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2018, 10:54:30 AM
Pfeiffer:

In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.

This abject lie alone completely discredits Pfeiffer.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 11:00:57 AM
Quote
the explicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion

Like what exactly? A God who rewards the good and punishes the evil?  ::) (Jєωs, Moslems, Hindu, basically all religions and sects agree with this)

No point at all in God having revealed Himself to us in the Person of Jesus Christ if this vagueness would suffice.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 20, 2018, 11:06:47 AM
Whatever Fr Pfeiffer, any other priest, the SSPX, any other group, any Father or Doctor of the Church ever taught on justification, as Catholics we are bound to stick to the Faith including the definitions and declarations of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church:


Vatican I: SESSION 2 : 6 January 1870, Profession of faith (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm)

Quote
Profession of faith

1, I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely:

[...]

6. I embrace and accept the whole and every part of what was defined and declared by the holy council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

[...]

Trent:  SESSION 6 : 1547, Decree on Justification (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm)

Quote
DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION
Proem.

Whereas there is, at this time, not without the shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine disseminated touching Justification; the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost,–the most reverend lords, Giammaria del Monte, bishop of Palaestrina, and Marcellus of the title of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, priest, cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and legates apostolic a latere, presiding therein, in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope,-purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillising of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.

[...]

CHAPTER VII.
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

[...]

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.

[...]



Any teachings about justification without the sacrament of baptism are most strictly forbidden by the Vatican Council as well as by the Council of Trent. They are an attack on the true Faith as professed by the holy Roman Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: forlorn on August 20, 2018, 11:29:29 AM
You keep repeating "explicit act of supernatural faith" but you've never explained what actually qualifies.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 11:47:51 AM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21230754_1439684942782245_4411929530954429795_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=78e15008865f76e5cd55fa88bc79b4da&oe=5BF38256)


So what are these "mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed" that St. Pius X was referring to here?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2018, 12:00:03 PM
Like what exactly? A God who rewards the good and punishes the evil?  ::) (Jєωs, Moslems, Hindu, basically all religions and sects agree with this)

No point at all in God having revealed Himself to us in the Person of Jesus Christ if this vagueness would suffice.

Right, this is why Johnson's analysis of Rahner is completely wrong.

Implicitists hold that the explicit belief in a truth that can be known also through natural reason suffices for supernatural faith.  In other words, they believe that people can be saved without knowledge of God's revelation.  No different than Rahner.

So Johnson fails on that point also.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2018, 12:02:00 PM
Vatican I puts that nail in the coffin of Rewarder God theory by defining supernatural faith as something that has for its object a truth that can be known ONLY by Revelation.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 20, 2018, 12:06:13 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21230754_1439684942782245_4411929530954429795_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=78e15008865f76e5cd55fa88bc79b4da&oe=5BF38256)


So what are these "mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed" that St. Pius X was referring to here?

So how does this mesh with Our Lady of Fatima's message that most souls go to hell due to sins of the flesh?

[hint:  I know the answer, and the key rests with St. Thomas.]
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 12:11:09 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21230754_1439684942782245_4411929530954429795_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=78e15008865f76e5cd55fa88bc79b4da&oe=5BF38256)


So what are these "mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed" that St. Pius X was referring to here?
.
Given that the quote is actually from Benedict XIV, the answer would probably be found in his (rather than Pope St. Pius X's) corpus.  The footnote in the encyclical indicates a docuмent shorthanded as Instit. but I'm not sure what docuмent that is, and it could even be a private work of Pope Benedict's since he is largely regarded as one of the best theologian-popes and published many works aside from his pontificate.
.
I know that in the context of Acerbo Nimis pope St. Pius X is considering primarily the poor state of education among Christians, and the paragraph where he cites Benedict XIV is one where he's just discussed how Christian faithful who had plenty of opportunities to learn, who were not weighed down by the obligations of their state, avoided all things religious and have tenuously left their religious instruction up to the priest who will be delivering them last rites.  So at least in that respect it is plain that the Pope isn't attempting to teach what articles of faith constitute the necessary elements for having supernatural faith, or even if any do.  It would be good, for these discussions, to see material which engages that point very directly rather than obliquely along the way to make a different point.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 12:32:47 PM
.
Given that the quote is actually from Benedict XIV, the answer would probably be found in his (rather than Pope St. Pius X's) corpus.  The footnote in the encyclical indicates a docuмent shorthanded as Instit. but I'm not sure what docuмent that is, and it could even be a private work of Pope Benedict's since he is largely regarded as one of the best theologian-popes and published many works aside from his pontificate.
.

It is Benedict XIV' Constitution, "Etsi Minime".
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 12:37:42 PM
I know that in the context of Acerbo Nimis pope St. Pius X is considering primarily the poor state of education among Christians, and the paragraph where he cites Benedict XIV is one where he's just discussed how Christian faithful who had plenty of opportunities to learn, who were not weighed down by the obligations of their state, avoided all things religious and have tenuously left their religious instruction up to the priest who will be delivering them last rites.  So at least in that respect it is plain that the Pope isn't attempting to teach what articles of faith constitute the necessary elements for having supernatural faith, or even if any do.  It would be good, for these discussions, to see material which engages that point very directly rather than obliquely along the way to make a different point.

Mmmm, so Christians are bound to the knowledge of specific truths of salvation but non-Christians can get away with not knowing?

It would seem than the knowledge of Christ and His Church (with the strict obligations that come with it) is rather a curse, then.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 20, 2018, 12:53:32 PM
The footnote in the encyclical indicates a docuмent shorthanded as Instit. but I'm not sure what docuмent that is, and it could even be a private work of Pope Benedict's since he is largely regarded as one of the best theologian-popes and published many works aside from his pontificate.

Instit. 27:18 is a reference to Institutiones Ecclesiasticæ, which can be found there: books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?id=DEpQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=%22Illud+affirmamus,+magnam+eorum+partem,+qui+aeternis+suppliciis+damnantur%22&source=bl&ots=bHMHp3XFef&sig=0mI6Uo6_CyJ6CMYcVjsZ-IHoUVU&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicpaqUkPzcAhWIipAKHbLPDngQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Illud%20affirmamus%2C%20magnam%20eorum%20partem%2C%20qui%20aeternis%20suppliciis%20damnantur%22&f=false).

Benedict XIV quotes Cornelius a Lapide:

Quote from: Cornelius a Lapide, In Comment. Epist. S. Jacobi cap. 2.
Multi enim laborant ignorantia crassa articulorum Fidei, quod explicite scire, et credere tenentur, aeque ac Sacramentorum.


I couldn't find Cornelius a Lapide online. Possibly the mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed are the ones from the Credo of St. Athanasius, or as specified by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
It is Benedict XIV' Constitution, "Etsi Minime".
Is it?  As I was looking into it I figured it was his Institutiones Ecclesiasticae, and probably from volume I, likely chapter 27 (the citation in the enclycical indicates instit. 27:18 ).  I'm unsure what the "18" refers to.  This copy (the only complete copy I could find) does not have numerated subdivisions within each chapter: https://books.google.com/books?id=QHWmru22PGoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
.
I tried to locate Pius X's citation but I couldn't.  I'm not much of a Latinist, though, I'm sure someone else could.
.
Mmmm, so Christians are bound to the knowledge of specific truths of salvation but non-Christians can get away with not knowing?

It would seem than the knowledge of Christ and His Church (with the strict obligations that come with it) is rather a curse, then.

.
I don't see how that follows from the quote you provided.  I was responding to your question viz. "what mysteries is Pope Pius X" referring to?  He doesn't, after all, say.  He cites another pope (incidentally, Institutiones Ecclesiasticae was a compilation of Benedict XIV's legal and pastoral works written before he was pope, published after he was pope.  At least, that's what I've gathered from looking into it.  Makes for an interesting case study in determining what magisterium it belongs to).
.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 01:05:49 PM
Instit. 27:18 is a reference to Institutiones Ecclesiasticæ, which can be found there: books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?id=DEpQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=%22Illud+affirmamus,+magnam+eorum+partem,+qui+aeternis+suppliciis+damnantur%22&source=bl&ots=bHMHp3XFef&sig=0mI6Uo6_CyJ6CMYcVjsZ-IHoUVU&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicpaqUkPzcAhWIipAKHbLPDngQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Illud%20affirmamus%2C%20magnam%20eorum%20partem%2C%20qui%20aeternis%20suppliciis%20damnantur%22&f=false).

Benedict XIV quotes Cornelius a Lapide:


I couldn't find Cornelius a Lapide online. Possibly the mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed are the ones from the Credo of St. Athanasius, or as specified by St. Thomas Aquinas.
.
Excellent find, Struthio!  And a better copy than the one I dug up, by the looks of it.  Thanks kindly.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 01:18:43 PM
Instit. 27:18 is a reference to Institutiones Ecclesiasticæ, which can be found there: books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?id=DEpQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=%22Illud+affirmamus,+magnam+eorum+partem,+qui+aeternis+suppliciis+damnantur%22&source=bl&ots=bHMHp3XFef&sig=0mI6Uo6_CyJ6CMYcVjsZ-IHoUVU&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicpaqUkPzcAhWIipAKHbLPDngQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Illud%20affirmamus%2C%20magnam%20eorum%20partem%2C%20qui%20aeternis%20suppliciis%20damnantur%22&f=false).

Benedict XIV quotes Cornelius a Lapide:


I couldn't find Cornelius a Lapide online. Possibly the mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed are the ones from the Credo of St. Athanasius, or as specified by St. Thomas Aquinas.
.
He doesn't actually say from what I can tell, except that in quoting Lapide, Lapide seems to mention the sacraments.  The broad context it seems is the duties before pastors as pastors to their flock (this is, after all, a canonical and pastoral work), in particular the duty to help the flock grow in knowledge of the faith (which is apropos, and precisely Pope St. Pius X's concern in Acerbo Nimis).  So I'm sure that the Incarnation and Trinity are included in these, but the sense seems to be enlarged for Benedict and Pope St. Pius X's purposes.  They seem more concerned with the growth of faith and knowledge among those who already have it/are members of the Church rather than the introduction of faith to those who don't.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 01:33:44 PM
Is it?  As I was looking into it I figured it was his Institutiones Ecclesiasticae, and probably from volume I, likely chapter 27 (the citation in the enclycical indicates instit. 27:18 ).  I'm unsure what the "18" refers to.  This copy (the only complete copy I could find) does not have numerated subdivisions within each chapter: https://books.google.com/books?id=QHWmru22PGoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
.

I figured because that it is the Constitution in which the Pope refers to the necessary truths to be believed, some of necessity of means and some of necessity of precept.

Here it is in Italian:

https://digilander.libero.it/magistero/b14etsim.htm
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Fist point, translated:

Quote
1. Ma poiché ci rivolgiamo a persone che conoscono la legge ed esortiamo gli accorti Vescovi delle Chiese, a cui non fanno difetto né la pietà né le risorse dei Sacri Scritti, riteniamo superfluo ribadire con molteplici argomenti che non è sufficiente, per raggiungere la celeste felicità, credere in modo confuso ed indistinto i Misteri rivelati da Dio e insegnati dalla Chiesa Cattolica.
Questa celeste dottrina trasmessa da Dio, e che viene accolta con l’ascolto, deve essere ricevuta dalla voce di un maestro legittimo e fedele, in modo tale che ne vengano spiegate singolarmente le verità basilari e siano proposte ai fedeli come verità da credere, alcune per necessità di mezzo e altre per necessità di precetto.
Anche se affermiamo che si viene giustificati per mezzo della Fede, essendo questa principio e fondamento della salvezza per poter giungere alfine alla bramata futura Città, è parimenti chiaro che la sola Fede non è sufficiente. Occorre conoscere la strada e mantenersi costantemente su di essa, cioè i precetti di Dio e della Chiesa, le virtù da coltivare e i vizi da evitare con cura.


1. But as we turn to people who know the law and urge the shrewd bishops of the churches, who do not defect neither the pity nor the resources of the sacred writings, we deem superfluous to reiterate with multiple arguments which is not sufficient, to reach the Heavenly Happiness, believing in a confused and indistinct way the mysteries revealed by God and taught by the Catholic Church.

This heavenly doctrine conveyed by God, and which is welcomed with listening, must be received from the voice of a legitimate and faithful master, in such a way that the basic truths are explained singularly and are proposed to the faithful as truths to be believed, some for Necessity of means and others by necessity of precept.

Even if we affirm that it is justified by faith, since this principle and foundation of salvation to be able to reach the desired future city, it is also clear that the faith alone is not sufficient. It is necessary to know the way and to keep constantly on it, that is the precepts of God and of the Church, the virtues to cultivate and the vices to avoid with care.


Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 02:00:25 PM
I figured because that it is the Constitution in which the Pope refers to the necessary truths to be believed, some of necessity of means and some of necessity of precept.

Here it is in Italian:

https://digilander.libero.it/magistero/b14etsim.htm

I also noticed that in St. Pius X' Acerbo Nimis, #12, he specifically cites Benedict's Constitution: 

Quote
12. These prescriptions of the Council of Trent have been summarized and still more clearly defined by Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, in his Constitution Esti minime. "Two chief obligations," he wrote, "have been imposed by the Council of Trent on those who have the care of souls: first, that of preaching the things of God to the people on the feast days; and second, that of teaching the rudiments of faith and of the divine law to the youth and others who need such instruction." Here the wise Pontiff rightly distinguishes between these two duties: one is what is commonly known as the explanation of the Gospel and the other is the teaching of Christian doctrine. Perhaps there are some who, wishing to lessen their labors, would believe that the homily on the Gospel can take the place of catechetical instruction. But for one who reflects a moment, such is obviously impossible. The sermon on the holy Gospel is addressed to those who should have already received knowledge of the elements of faith. It is, so to speak, bread broken for adults. Catechetical instruction, on the other hand, is that milk which the Apostle Peter wished the faithful to desire in all simplicity like newborn babes.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 20, 2018, 02:30:24 PM
So we go from:

The Anathasian Creed:

Quote
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) that he hold the Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm). Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is this:, that we worship one God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty...

To >>>>

Sean Johnson:

Quote
Whosoever will be saved...it is necessary to have an explicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: tdrev123 on August 20, 2018, 02:34:23 PM
So we go from:

The Anathasian Creed:

To >>>>

Sean Johnson:
Usually it is the ones who scream heretic the most that are the true heretics.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 20, 2018, 06:58:24 PM
Can anyone be saved without explicit belief in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Holy Trinity as the OP and Karl Rahner contend?

DOGMA:

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... 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.”



If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like the OP (and Karl Rahner) who show  no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase the OP one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.



If the OP will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince him that he is wrong. He should be prepared though, that if these clear dogmas do not mean what they clearly say, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And he might as well go talk to himself.


BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)



The OP and Rahner also deny dogmatic Creeds:



Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.



The OP also throws  St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori under the bus.



St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)



Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)










Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 20, 2018, 07:27:06 PM
Can anyone be saved without explicit belief in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Holy Trinity as the OP and Karl Rahner contend?

DOGMA:

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... 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.”



If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like the OP (and Karl Rahner) who show  no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase the OP one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.



If the OP will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince him that he is wrong. He should be prepared though, that if these clear dogmas do not mean what they clearly say, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And he might as well go talk to himself.


BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)



The OP and Rahner also deny dogmatic Creeds:



Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.



The OP also throws  St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori under the bus.



St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)



Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

Look at the Feeneyites, all frothy and foaming.

This IS good fun!
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 20, 2018, 08:11:39 PM
The relevant question is how did Baptism of Desire get extended to followers of false religions? You won't find St. Alphonsus teaching that. His interpretation of "de fide" doesn't include Hindus, Jєωs, Muslims, etc.

St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm)

Chapter 2


Quote
Quote
Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." Romans 10:17-18 Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way — what must human nature do, or what has it done — for it had either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished — but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." Galatians 2:21 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jєωs received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment — except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.


Find a saint who teaches that Protestants and Eastern heretics can find salvation without the Catholic faith. . . albeit the task is preposterous. You won't find one.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 20, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
How many are willing to let Baptism of Desire alone? Perhaps if only it is kept to catechumens and those seeking the Catholic faith, the latter perhaps ignorant of the necessity of Baptism but seeking the faith in all earnest, THAT is implicit desire.

Of the speculative number that might be saved by BoD how many more have in their deaths before Baptism a just punishment. . .
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 20, 2018, 09:01:25 PM
Look at the Feeneyites, all frothy and foaming.

This IS good fun!
:popcorn:
Where does one come to see frothing and foaming from the dogmas that I posted? All I see in that response is the writer discrediting himself online. He would be wise to think before he post "replies" like that.
It makes me wonder just how old the person on the other side is. 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 20, 2018, 09:04:36 PM
The relevant question is how did Baptism of Desire get extended to followers of false religions? You won't find St. Alphonsus teaching that. His interpretation of "de fide" doesn't include Hindus, Jєωs, Muslims, etc.

The relevant question is: Why would a Catholic quote Fathers, Doctors, or generally Saints like St. Alphonsus or St. Thomas Aquinas to learn about the true Faith, while the competent authority on Faith is the infallible Magisterium of the Church?

The ecuмenical Vatican Council makes all teachings of the ecuмenical Council of Trent with respect to justification part of the Profession of the Faith of the holy Roman Church (see here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-bod-merely-a-'disputed-issue'/msg623020/#msg623020)). The ecuмenical Council of Trent does not teach any "Baptism of Desire" (not even for a catechumen) and strictly forbids to teach, preach, or believe any such thing (see here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-bod-merely-a-'disputed-issue'/msg623020/#msg623020)).

The ecuмenical Council of Trent teaches (source see here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-bod-merely-a-'disputed-issue'/msg623020/#msg623020)):

Quote
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.

There is no "Baptism of Desire", not even for catechumens. A catechumen cannot have the Faith. The Faith is infused when receiving the sacrament of baptism.

Noone has "supernatural Faith" or Faith at all, if Faith hasn't been infused when receiving the sacrament of baptism. That's what the competent authority on Faith, the infallible Magisterium of the Church, teaches. That's what the Council of Trent teaches, and what the Vatican Council declares to be part of the Profession of Faith of the holy Roman Church (see here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-bod-merely-a-'disputed-issue'/msg623020/#msg623020)).

Please, stop quoting fallible Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, on questions which have been infallibly answered, defined, and decreed by the infallible extraordinary Magisterium of the Church of our Lord.

I prefer to confess the Profession of Faith of the holy Roman Church here and now, and I prefer to die confessing the Profession of Faith of the holy Roman Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 20, 2018, 09:45:14 PM
But, but, but St Alphonsus said...
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 10:01:19 PM
Well Trent says faith comes from hearing. So even if you want to throw out the ordinary magisterium, Struthio, Trent isn't going to get you to BoD denial. Certainly not the way you just described, at any rate.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 20, 2018, 10:15:01 PM
Well Trent says faith comes from hearing. So even if you want to throw out the ordinary magisterium, Struthio, Trent isn't going to get you to BoD denial. Certainly not the way you just described, at any rate.

Trent says that the catechumen asks for the faith before being baptized (see the quote in my post above, and compare the liturgical books). Then, Trent says, the faith is infused when the catechumen receives the sacrament of baptism (see the quote in my post above).

I do not throw out any ordinary magisterium. There is no ordinary magisterium contradicting the infallible extraordinary Magisterium of the ecuмenical councils. You should be aware that there have been, and are bad (and even faked or modified) catechisms, diverse ignorant theologians and clerics contradicting the infallible extraordinary Magisterium. The Council of Trent advises you to use its decrees to detect and reject them (I can look up the corresponding quote from the Council of Trent in case you're not aware of it).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 20, 2018, 10:18:50 PM

Quote
Well Trent says faith comes from hearing. 
What a Protestant sounding attempt at a rebuttal.  Well done, brother Mith!  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 20, 2018, 10:19:11 PM
Where does one come to see frothing and foaming from the dogmas that I posted? All I see in that response is the writer discrediting himself online. He would be wise to think before he post "replies" like that.
It makes me wonder just how old the person on the other side is.

More froth and foam.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 20, 2018, 10:21:00 PM
Well Trent says faith comes from hearing. So even if you want to throw out the ordinary magisterium, Struthio, Trent isn't going to get you to BoD denial. Certainly not the way you just described, at any rate.

Oh-oh...

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 20, 2018, 10:23:17 PM
What a Protestant sounding attempt at a rebuttal.  Well done, brother Mith!  

The Feeneyites going after the sedevacantists.

Now I can guarantee that this thread will last at least 250 pages, covering everything from hard boiled eggs to why Prots like McDonalds.

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 10:23:36 PM
Well let's take one thing at a time. I'm happy to debate the point directly from Trent, so long as I'm also on record noting that the real problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic learning viz. disregard for the ordinary magisterium.

When describing the justification of the sinner before baptism, Trent teaches (contra the Protestants) the initiatory role that faith plays in that process. It says faith comes from hearing, not baptism. Denz 798

"Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised..."
.
It says the virtues are infused at baptism too, of course, which only makes sense given the (again, contra Protestants) *continued* justification of souls.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 20, 2018, 10:37:56 PM
Well let's take one thing at a time. I'm happy to debate the point directly from Trent, so long as I'm also on record noting that the real problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic learning viz. disregard for the ordinary magisterium.

When describing the justification of the sinner before baptism, Trent teaches (contra the Protestants) the initiatory role that faith plays in that process. It says faith comes from hearing, not baptism. Denz 798

"Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised..."
.
It says the virtues are infused at baptism too, of course, which only makes sense given the (again, contra Protestants) *continued* justification of souls.

Yes, Trent teaches that you have to first hear and learn the content of the faith. That alone won't happen without the grace of God (which is not yet sanctifying grace). Then you have to assent. Then you beg for baptism. When receiving the sacrament, the faith is infused (as well as hope and charity), sanctifying grace is then infused without which you are not justified.

(This irrelevant short description cannot replace the relevant teaching of the Council of Trent in cuм hoc tempore, the decree on justification linked in my first post on page #1 of this thread. The length of the decree is a few screen pages. Anyone should read and study it from the first to the last line. Then there are some helpful Canons.)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 20, 2018, 10:47:05 PM
But that isn't what it says, Struthio. It says they receive faith by hearing. It describes that faith as a *grace* whereby man believes all that God has revealed. It then describes the acquisition of the other two virtues (hope and charity). All before baptism.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 20, 2018, 10:50:33 PM
But that isn't what it says, Struthio. It says they receive faith by hearing. It describes that faith as a *grace* whereby man believes all that God has revealed. It then describes the acquisition of the other two virtues (hope and charity).

It says that "they are disposed to that justice". You need to be disposed to receive justification by the sacrament of baptism. Hearing does not transmit the faith, hearing disposes to be prepared to receive the faith.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 21, 2018, 12:26:36 AM
It says that "they are disposed to that justice". You need to be disposed to receive justification by the sacrament of baptism. Hearing does not transmit the faith, hearing disposes to be prepared to receive the faith.
.
It seems to me that there are some who, to defend BoD as being "de fide" or even "ex cathedra" (seriously!), are coming from a place of ignorance regarding the nature of grace. They confuse actual grace with sanctifying grace, and I have met a few who claim there is no distinction, that all graces are the same; such that pagans ignorantly worshiping at a pagan shrine are thereby recipients of the same sanctifying grace (and therefore justification and salvation without need for Baptism) that the Apostles received on Pentecost Sunday.
.
You can't make this stuff up!
.
When did the Apostles teach that receiving the Holy Ghost on Pentecost made them all exempt from having to be baptized? 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 21, 2018, 05:49:05 AM
Well let's take one thing at a time. I'm happy to debate the point directly from Trent, so long as I'm also on record noting that the real problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic learning viz. disregard for the ordinary magisterium.
Before anything, what exactly are you saying is  part of the ordinary magisterium, what precisely are you talking about and defending,  explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or salvation by implicit faith (salvation by belief  in a God that rewards)?

Let's be precise before we discuss anything having to do with this "greased pig" (for BOD can mean anything from explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen to salvation in any religion or no religion) or we'll never get ahold of it (this thread will go forever).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 05:51:02 AM
It says that "they are disposed to that justice". You need to be disposed to receive justification by the sacrament of baptism. Hearing does not transmit the faith, hearing disposes to be prepared to receive the faith.

Hey Mith-

Ask him how, if this is true, could Fr Feeney have admitted that men could be justified without water baptism?

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 06:43:42 AM
...and while you’re at it, ask him how, if the state of justification (ie, grace) is a participation in the Divine economy and a friendship with God which entitles one to a right to salvation, nevertheless, Fr Feeney can allege those who die justified without water baptism are somehow damned.

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 07:40:48 AM
Look at the Feeneyites, all frothy and foaming.

This IS good fun!
:popcorn:

I see that this is all you have left, Johnson, after your initial argument was demonstrated to be utterly moronic.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 07:56:49 AM
Hey Mith-

Ask him how, if this is true, could Fr Feeney have admitted that men could be justified without water baptism?

:popcorn:

Fr. Leonard Feeney is as irrelevant as you and I are. The Faith of the holy Roman Church is defined and declared by the Magisterium of the Church and not by some Jesuit priest. The professio fidei of the Vatican Council includes all of what the Council of Trent teaches about justification. Trent teaches that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently noone can be justified without the sacrament of baptism.

The Decree on Justification (cuм hoc tempore) of the holy and sacred Council of Trent is truth fallen from heaven. It strictly forbids to believe, preach, or teach anything on justification deviating from the same decree. Also, it does not mention any exceptions for priests in countries which didn't even exist.


Quote from: SeanJohnson
...and while you’re at it, ask him how, if the state of justification (ie, grace) is a participation in the Divine economy and a friendship with God which entitles one to a right to salvation, nevertheless, Fr Feeney can allege those who die justified without water baptism are somehow damned.
:popcorn:

Neither the Vatican Council nor the Council of Trent speak of "a participation in the Divine economy", "a friendship with God", or "a right to salvation". Rather, justification is called an "adoption". The unbaptized are "children of wrath", the baptized are "adopted sons of God", justification is a "translation to the state of grace".


The phrase "a right to salvation" sounds like part of some freemason ritual. To speak of a right to grace is a contradiction in terms.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 08:20:53 AM
It says that "they are disposed to that justice". You need to be disposed to receive justification by the sacrament of baptism. Hearing does not transmit the faith, hearing disposes to be prepared to receive the faith.
.
But what it says is that the disposition to justice consists in faith (a grace "received by hearing" whereby man believes all which God has revealed), hope, and charity (which culminates in a resolve for baptism and a commitment to abandon the old man and follow Christ's commandments).
.
It says nothing about the reception of water baptism as a required element in the disposition for justification.  Baptism is the instrumental cause, as one reads in the next paragraph.  The disposition to justice itself requires supernatural faith.  I am not sure how one can read Trent any other way.  Here, let's look at the full paragraph (this more or less immediately follows Trent's teaching that justification cannot be effected without baptism or a desire for it, and it immediately precedes Trent's teachings on the cause of justification):
.

Quote
Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through his grace, "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" [Rom. 3:24], and when knowing that they are sinners, turning themselves away from the fear of divine justice, by which they are profitably aroused [can. 8], to a consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, and they begin to love him as the source of all justice and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation [can. 9], that is, by that repentance, which must be performed before baptism [Acts 2:38]; and finally when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written: "He that cometh to God must believe, that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him" [Heb. 11:6], and, "Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee" [Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5], and, "The fear of the Lord driveth out sin" [Sirach. 1:27], 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 Holy Spirit" [Acts 2:38], and, "Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" [Matt. 28:19], and finally, "Prepare your hearts unto the Lord" [1 Samuel 7:3]. (Denz. 798 )

.
I emphasized a few things for convenience.  Mainly, that Trent is describing the acquisition of supernatural faith on the part of the catechumen.  As one continues reading, it's very clear that this paragraph is saying much more than "catechumens need to learn what's in the faith."  As you just pointed out, this paragraph concerns the preparation of the sinner for restoration to justice.  That is correct, and that preparation consists in the acquisition of all three virtues, the first of which is supernatural faith, the greatest of which is supernatural charity.
.
Your contention was that supernatural faith is only first ever received through baptism.  If that were true, Trent would not describe its reception in the Catechumen altogether prior to baptism.  But it does.  If you have a new argument that's fine.  But right now I'm only concerned with your claim that faith is only first received at baptism.  Trent clearly teaches otherwise, as we see here.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 08:30:33 AM
I emphasized a few things for convenience.  Mainly, that Trent is describing the acquisition of supernatural faith on the part of the catechumen.  As one continues reading, it's very clear that this paragraph is saying much more than "catechumens need to learn what's in the faith."  As you just pointed out, this paragraph concerns the preparation of the sinner for restoration to justice.  That is correct, and that preparation consists in the acquisition of all three virtues, the first of which is supernatural faith, the greatest of which is supernatural charity.

Wow.  This is false on so many levels.  First and foremost, your mistinterpretation of Trent is completely Pelagian .. and is contrary to precisely what Trent was trying to teach here.  No one "acquires" the supernatural virtues.  They cannot be acquired by any natural effort.  What happens in this "preparation" is what theologians call the exercise of natural virtues that are homologous, as it were, to their supernatural equivalents.  These natural virtues are typically a precursor to the supernatural ones, but they are not the cause of the reception of the supernatural ones (that would be Pelagian).  Typically these are qualified with the Latin term initialis, e.g. fides initialis, caritas initalis, etc.  It is only AT THE TIME OF JUSTIFICATION that one can be said to receive the supernatural virtues.  In fact, justification is basically synonymous with the reception of the supernatural virtues, and this section in Trent refers to the PREPARATION for justification, and not justification itself ... which follows the preparation (by God's grace).  Trent's intent here is to teach the distinction between the natural efforts involved in the preparation and the actual reception of the supernatural virtues which cannot be merited, nor are they somehow "acquired" through the preparation itself.

This is the biggest problem with BoD.  Nearly every single time someone tries to explain it, the explanation is Pelagian or otherwise heretical.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 08:42:02 AM
Lad,

I am concerned with Struthio's claim that faith only first comes from baptism.  That's what I said from the outset.  I've said-- multiple times-- faith is a grace.  I know it can't naturally be acquired.  And you can only get an impression otherwise by ignoring everything I've said except the word "acquire."
.
As to the rest, I've not actually made any claims about justification.  You're jumping way ahead and I think you're mistaking me with people you've argued with before, something you do pretty much every time you respond to me.  I've asked you before and I'd really appreciate if you not impose all of your negative experiences with other posters on your interactions with me.  Nor to assume that I speak for them or they for me.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 08:53:25 AM

St. Amborse De Mysteriis:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 08:54:27 AM
Lad,

I am concerned with Struthio's claim that faith only first comes from baptism.  That's what I said from the outset.  I've said-- multiple times-- faith is a grace.  I know it can't naturally be acquired.  And you can only get an impression otherwise by ignoring everything I've said except the word "acquire."
.
As to the rest, I've not actually made any claims about justification.  You're jumping way ahead and I think you're mistaking me with people you've argued with before, something you do pretty much every time you respond to me.  I've asked you before and I'd really appreciate if you not impose all of your negative experiences with other posters on your interactions with me.  Nor to assume that I speak for them or they for me.

No.  You speak clearly about the "acquisition" of the supernatural virtues ... which is Pelagian.  In fact, all BoD theory is at least semi-Pelagian along these same lines.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: 2Vermont on August 21, 2018, 08:57:24 AM
You keep repeating "explicit act of supernatural faith" but you've never explained what actually qualifies.
I don't normally dip my toe into this water (excuse the expression....lol), but I asked about this in the locked thread and never got a response either.  Something was said in that thread about implicit baptism of desire (I think it was by Pax Vobis) that made me see things differently than I had in the past.  An answer to this question would help clarify things for me.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:08:25 AM
I see that this is all you have left, Johnson, after your initial argument was demonstrated to be utterly moronic.

I guess saying that is easier than making an argument.

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 09:10:26 AM
No.  You speak clearly about the "acquisition" of the supernatural virtues ... which is Pelagian.  In fact, all BoD theory is at least semi-Pelagian along these same lines.
... While calling it a Grace received by God.  While emphasizing all the parts of Trent which describe this.  Contra a very specific point, viz. the claim that faith is only first received at baptism.  Intermittently using an inferior term in such a context shouldn't cause the sort of tumult it has.  I don't mind a correction about terminology, but you're running rampant with it.  Which is very unfortunate, since your astute mind is better served than by subtle psycho-terminological-analysis in pursuit of molding an enemy. 
.
I've clarified what I meant, multiple times, and even before you took issue with it.  So I'll leave it there and just hope that you'll contribute to the current strain of discussion instead of manipulating it so you can theologically vent.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:12:26 AM
Fr. Leonard Feeney is as irrelevant as you and I are. The Faith of the holy Roman Church is defined and declared by the Magisterium of the Church and not by some Jesuit priest. The professio fidei of the Vatican Council includes all of what the Council of Trent teaches about justification. Trent teaches that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently noone can be justified without the sacrament of baptism.

The Decree on Justification (cuм hoc tempore) of the holy and sacred Council of Trent is truth fallen from heaven. It strictly forbids to believe, preach, or teach anything on justification deviating from the same decree. Also, it does not mention any exceptions for priests in countries which didn't even exist.


Neither the Vatican Council nor the Council of Trent speak of "a participation in the Divine economy", "a friendship with God", or "a right to salvation". Rather, justification is called an "adoption". The unbaptized are "children of wrath", the baptized are "adopted sons of God", justification is a "translation to the state of grace".


The phrase "a right to salvation" sounds like part of some freemason ritual. To speak of a right to grace is a contradiction in terms.

In other words, God damns the just.

Got it.

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 09:26:29 AM
In other words, God damns the just.

Got it.

:popcorn:

Hey, tard, try actually reading what Father Feeney said before running your (virutal) mouth and making an idiot out of yourself ... which you are becoming known for.

Father Feeney holds that God will never allow the justified to die without the Sacrament.  That justification and salvation (the perseverence in justification) are two completely distinct graces is taught dogmatically by Trent.  No one will be allowed to persevere to the end in justification and then die in that state without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 10:07:13 AM
Quote
But what it says is that the disposition to justice consists in faith (a grace "received by hearing" whereby man believes all which God has revealed
You are misunderstanding what St Paul is saying.  You need to read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 10.  When St Paul says that "faith cometh by hearing", he's talking about the truths of the faith, not the virtue of faith.  No one can receive a virtue simply by hearing about it.  The truths of our faith are received by hearing of them, then we receive actual graces to accept the truth.  When we accept the truth, then we are given MORE actual graces to not only accept the truth but ACT on the truth, which requires one to JOIN the Church/Faith.  When one decides to accept and join the Church, THEN one is said to have an IMPLICIT desire for baptism, even if one has not EXPLICITLY asked for baptism.

In my opinion, this is the only IMPLICIT desire that St Alphonsus would approve of.  The IMPLICIT desire by someone who is UNAWARE of baptism/Church is a contradiction.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 10:15:38 AM
You are misunderstanding what St Paul is saying.  You need to read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 10.  When St Paul says that "faith cometh by hearing", he's talking about the truths of the faith, not the virtue of faith.  No one can receive a virtue simply by hearing about it.  The truths of our faith are received by hearing of them, then we receive actual graces to accept the truth.  When we accept the truth, then we are given MORE actual graces to not only accept the truth but ACT on the truth, which requires one to JOIN the Church/Faith.  When one decides to accept and join the Church, THEN one is said to have an IMPLICIT desire for baptism, even if one has not EXPLICITLY asked for baptism.
.
I've not given an opinion on what St. Paul is saying, except that he's not talking about baptism, and that neither is Trent in Denz. 798 (quoted above, several times).  
.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 21, 2018, 10:33:59 AM
Hey, tard, try actually reading what Father Feeney said before running your (virutal) mouth and making an idiot out of yourself ... which you are becoming known for.

Father Feeney holds that God will never allow the justified to die without the Sacrament.  That justification and salvation (the perseverence in justification) are two completely distinct graces is taught dogmatically by Trent.  No one will be allowed to persevere to the end in justification and then die in that state without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.
Yes, the good Fr. Feeney is quite clear:

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."


The only rebuttal an SJ could possibly return with to argue the above truth, is one that first must deny, then wholly reject  Divine Providence altogether - all the while insisting he is doing no such thing.


Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 10:34:45 AM
You've repeatedly said that the faith received by hearing is a grace.  I'm arguing that St Paul is talking about the truth of the Faith, not a grace.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
You've repeatedly said that the faith received by hearing is a grace.  I'm arguing that St Paul is talking about the truth of the Faith, not a grace.
.
I am talking about Trent directly, which quotes St. Paul.  St. Paul's significance to the question is indirect. 
.
In case you really think that I am saying grace is received aurally as though it were a soundwave, I am not:
.

Quote
Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised

.
I don't think it's particularly difficult to see what's happening here.  Supernatural faith is a grace, the object of which is Divine Revelation, something which must be known in the intellect (i.e. "by hearing"-- not in the strictest literal sense, given that deaf people can be saved, but in the broader intellectual sense of apprehension and certitude).  That's what I believe, and that's, so far as I can tell, the teaching of the Catholic Church.  But all I'm interested in right now is Struthio's claim that faith comes only (first) from baptism.  I haven't (and won't) move beyond that point until we figure it out.  Struthio seems pretty intelligent-- he's a better Latinist than I, tracked down Benedict XIV's Institutiones Ecclesiasticae for me, and I'd like to work this out with him.  I think it's important that we acknowledge what Trent actually says regarding the genesis of faith for the catechumen.  Then we can move on to more "dramatic" matters.  But not with a faulty premise that faith only first comes from baptism.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 21, 2018, 11:08:59 AM
Well let's take one thing at a time. I'm happy to debate the point directly from Trent, so long as I'm also on record noting that the real problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic learning viz. disregard for the ordinary magisterium.
Before anything, what exactly are you saying is  part of the ordinary magisterium, what precisely are you talking about and defending,  explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or salvation by implicit faith (salvation by belief  in a God that rewards)?

Let's be precise before we discuss anything having to do with this "greased pig" (for BOD can mean anything from explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen to salvation in any religion or no religion) or we'll never get ahold of it (this thread will go forever).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Mithrandylan,

You never responded to my post above from page 3, perhaps you didn't see it? Please respond.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 11:13:02 AM
I saw it, Tradhican.  I hoped that my reticence to your question would serve as an encouragement for you to read what I'd posted rather than dichotomously jumping leagues ahead.  I'm not actually talking about baptism of desire or implicit faith, not yet, anyways (although BoD is of course relevant and the impetus for the discussion). Right now we're answering this question: "how does one 'get' faith in the first place?"  The impetus being Struthio's claim that one only first receives faith through baptism.

ETA (general comment): but if it helps everybody just settle down and actually respond to what I've said instead of jumping ahead, misconstruing it, looking for enemies, calling names, or otherwise just being committed to cantankerous bloviating, I am not arguing, nor do I intend to argue, anything at all that diminishes the indispensable (and I use that word in its strictest, metaphysical sense) role that grace, faith, hope, and charity play in justification.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 11:25:55 AM
The impetus being Struthio's claim that one only first receives faith through baptism.

There's no question that faith can only be received THROUGH Baptism.  You're alleging that faith can be received BEFORE Baptism.  Please get the terms straight.  In fact, your reading of Trent would have it that faith MUST be had before Baptism, except that the Ritual of Baptism has the candidate asking "faith" of the Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 11:28:36 AM
Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving (the TRUTHS of the) faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised.


Does this added phrase clear it up for you?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 11:33:11 AM
There's no question that faith can only be received THROUGH Baptism.  You're alleging that faith can be received BEFORE Baptism.  Please get the terms straight.  In fact, your reading of Trent would have it that faith MUST be had before Baptism, except that the Ritual of Baptism has the candidate asking "faith" of the Church.
.
Trent is describing the disposition to justice (i.e., the "manner of preparation"), not "what happens to all catechumens before they approach the font" nor "what must happen to all catechumens before they are baptized."  So no, I don't think it logically follows that faith is a requisite for receiving baptism (although the Catechism of Trent, on this point, if read in a vaccuum at least, might cause some confusion).  But yes, faith can certainly be received prior to baptism.  How else (and on what grounds) would you understand Denz. 798?  Not just the reference to faith, but also to hope and charity, neither of which can exist without faith?
.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 21, 2018, 11:39:31 AM
You are misunderstanding what St Paul is saying.  You need to read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 10.  When St Paul says that "faith cometh by hearing", he's talking about the truths of the faith, not the virtue of faith.  No one can receive a virtue simply by hearing about it.  The truths of our faith are received by hearing of them, then we receive actual graces to accept the truth.  When we accept the truth, then we are given MORE actual graces to not only accept the truth but ACT on the truth, which requires one to JOIN the Church/Faith.  When one decides to accept and join the Church, THEN one is said to have an IMPLICIT desire for baptism, even if one has not EXPLICITLY asked for baptism.

In my opinion, this is the only IMPLICIT desire that St Alphonsus would approve of.  The IMPLICIT desire by someone who is UNAWARE of baptism/Church is a contradiction.

You are right.

Quote
Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God

This "faith" and "hope" spoken here in "Trent's manner of preparation" ARE NOT the supernatural theological virtues of Faith and Hope infused in Baptism, which happens after.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 11:44:08 AM
Hey, tard, try actually reading what Father Feeney said before running your (virutal) mouth and making an idiot out of yourself ... which you are becoming known for.

Father Feeney holds that God will never allow the justified to die without the Sacrament.  That justification and salvation (the perseverence in justification) are two completely distinct graces is taught dogmatically by Trent.  No one will be allowed to persevere to the end in justification and then die in that state without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.

Not casting a very edifying figure, are we now?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 11:44:54 AM
You are right.

This "faith" and "hope" spoken here in Trent's preparation of Justification ARE NOT the supernatural theological virtues of Faith and Hope infused in Baptism, which happens after.
.
What is a better definition of supernatural faith than what Trent describes: being moved by Grace, believing all which God has revealed to be true?  Not a rhetorical question, perhaps you could find some solemn teaching instance where supernatural faith is described differently than as a grace whereby a person believes in Divine Revelation. 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 11:48:05 AM
.
What is a better definition of supernatural faith than what Trent describes: being moved by Grace, believing all which God has revealed to be true?  Not a rhetorical question, perhaps you could find some solemn teaching instance where supernatural faith is described differently than as a grace whereby a person believes in Divine Revelation.

That "being moved by grace" part refers to the fact that even the inclination to begin the preparation for Baptism is an unmerited grace from God.  This is a reference to the actual grace that prompts the person to begin the movement towards justification.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 11:50:33 AM
That "being moved by grace" part refers to the fact that even the inclination to begin the preparation for Baptism is an unmerited grace from God.  This is a reference to the actual grace that prompts the person to begin the movement towards justification.
.
I've never heard of actual grace described as a grace whereby a person is freely moved to believe Divine Revelation.  If that is what actual grace is, what is the definition of supernatural faith? 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 11:57:04 AM
Actual Grace definition - Temporary supernatural intervention by God to enlighten the mind or strengthen the will to perform supernatural actions that lead to heaven. Actual grace is therefore a transient divine assistance to enable man to obtain, retain, or grow in supernatural grace and the life of God.

There are two primary categories of grace: actual and sanctifying. Actual grace is extrinsic to the soul, meaning that it is an impulse to do good or avoid evil that is sent by God and acts upon the soul much like a tugboat gently nudges an ocean liner to move in a certain direction. Sometimes the nudges aren't very subtle, as in the case of Saul who received a massive blast of actual grace on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:1-8. This actual grace "nudged" him to convert to the Catholic faith.

Sanctifying grace, on the other hand, is intrinsic to the soul, meaning that it inheres or takes up residence in the soul. When Saul surrendered his heart to Christ and entered the Church the Holy Spirit infused his soul with sanctifying grace.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 11:59:45 AM
Pax, rather than a definition from Fr. Hardon on actual grace, I was hoping someone could provide a definition of supernatural faith from a solemn council.

Some solemn teaching instance that makes it really clear that supernatural faith is not a grace whereby we believe in Divine Revelation. 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 21, 2018, 12:02:55 PM
.
What is a better definition of supernatural faith than what Trent describes: being moved by Grace, believing all which God has revealed to be true?  Not a rhetorical question, perhaps you could find some solemn teaching instance where supernatural faith is described differently than as a grace whereby a person believes in Divine Revelation.

Remission of sins, and also Hope and Charity must be infused as well for justification to occur. It is not "faith" alone or simply believing in the intellect what God has revealed. Quoting Trent, "Whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity".


Quote
For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]

For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circuмcision availeth anything nor uncircuмcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[41]

This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.

Why the catechumen would ask of the Church this Faith, if he already possessed it?

If he already possessed it as a catechumen, well... then there was no need for the catechumen to beg for it before the sacrament of Baptism.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 12:08:56 PM
Remission of sins, and also Hope and Charity must be infused as well for justification to occur. It is not "faith" alone or simply believing in the intellect what God has revealed. "Whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity".
.
I don't follow, are you admitting that Trent is describing supernatural faith when it says the catechumen receives a grace from God which enables him to believe in Divine Revelation?  Or are you changing the subject? (I don't ask that question in a mean tone, I am just trying to figure out what this has to do with what we're talking about, viz. "when" a person can have supernatural faith).


Quote
Why the catechumen would ask of the Church this Faith, if he already possessed it?

If he already possessed it as a catechumen, well... then there was no need for the catechumen to beg for it before the sacrament of Baptism.
.
That would be a valid objection if grace and virtues were static.  But such was the position of the Protestants, and Trent itself rebuts it (Denz. 803), teaching instead that we grow in them.  So it is neither redundant nor superfluous for baptism to infuse them.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Vatican I, chapter 3 talks about Faith.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Vatican I, chapter 3 talks about Faith.
.
Nice.  What does it say?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 12:31:25 PM
Too long to post it all.  I'm still not sure I understand your question so I couldn't cite to answer it.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
Too long to post it all.  I'm still not sure I understand your question so I couldn't cite to answer it.
.
Well, it's nice to see you slowing down and curtailing your haste :)
.
The question is at the top of the page.  Is there a definition of supernatural faith available to us from any solemn teaching instance?  If so, what is it?
.
ETA: and since all the context is on previous pages, here's a very brief summary to bring us up to snuff.  Struthio, Ladislaus, and it seems like Cantarella have all argued that supernatural faith is only first received at baptism.  My argument is that it can be received before, and I based this on Trent (Denz. 798 ) which describes how a catechumen may be moved by divine grace to believe in divine revelation.  
.
Ladislaus (and it seems like Cantarella, too) argued that this was merely describing actual grace.  At which point the question "what is supernatural faith?" becomes quite apropos.  I would think no better definition exists of it than a grace whereby we are moved to believe in Divine Revelation.  Lad and Cantarella seem to imply that there is a better definition out there, something I'm assuming they would only say if they actually had such a definition in mind.  So, that's what we're looking for.  It's very generous of you to volunteer to do the heavy lifting for them.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 21, 2018, 01:10:37 PM

I don't follow, are you admitting that Trent is describing supernatural faith when it says the catechumen receives a grace from God which enables him to believe in Divine Revelation?  Or are you changing the subject? (I don't ask that question in a mean tone, I am just trying to figure out what this has to do with what we're talking about, viz. "when" a person can have supernatural faith).

Trent is describing the initial stages of Justification, but this Justification is not sealed until the sacramental Baptism takes place and the three theological virtues are infused at the same time.

Even those who think that the "vow" "desire thereof" could potentially be a substitute for the tangible clear water on head in a dying catechumen ("Baptism of Desire") must admit this because Baptism is necessary for salvation.

True Justice doesn't begin until the first Sacrament, Baptism, which is the entrance to supernatural life in Christ Jesus. (Trent confirms this in the first paragraph on the Sacraments session).

Quote
For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired.

* Either begins = Baptism

* Being begun it increases = Eucharist and the rest of Sacraments

* Being lost = Penance
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 01:24:12 PM
Forgive me, but you appear to just be begging the question, and aside from that, jumping quite a bit ahead.  All I've been talking about for three pages is faith.  That's it, nothing else.  My sole purpose at this point is over the question of whether or not supernatural faith can be had prior to baptism.  If you agree with me that catechumens may have faith (per Denz. 798 ) then we can debate other points elsewhere.  If you disagree, then let's keep on with that thread and get a definition of supernatural faith produced.  As I said earlier, I have no interest in proceeding to later points if we're resting on a faulty premise of when faith (which is necessary for justification) can begin.

ETA: just to prevent any confusion with this or any other post, when I say "faith" in these contexts I always mean supernatural faith unless noted otherwise.  Not natural faith, not an act of faith, not a mere "awareness" of what God has revealed, but the virtue of supernatural faith, "without which it is impossible to please God."
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 02:29:16 PM
Struthio, Ladislaus, and it seems like Cantarella have all argued that supernatural faith is only first received at baptism.

You're conflating too many questions here.

1) Some Feeneyites believe that supernatural faith (and justification) can be had before Baptism; others do not.

2) Even if there's supernatural faith before Baptism, there's the next question of whether supernatural faith suffices for salvation (attainment of the beatific vision) without the character of Baptism.

3) Whether it's even possible for initial supernatural faith to be received independent of the other theological virtues in the state of initial justification (some Church teaching suggest not).

I am of the opinion that supernatural faith is received only at the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, but Father Feeney's distinction between justification and salvation is not without foundation.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 02:33:11 PM
Even those who think that the "vow" "desire thereof" could potentially be a substitute for the tangible clear water on head in a dying catechumen ("Baptism of Desire") must admit this because Baptism is necessary for salvation.

This is correct, and the vast majority of BoDers fall into heresy on this point.  Elsewhere, Trent explicitly taught that, in the case of Confession, perfect contrition without the Sacrament of Confession did not suffice to restore the soul to a state of justification, that the Sacrament is necessary as the instrumental cause.  Same thing must be said for Baptism, but many BoDers deny this and claim, quite heretically, that justification and salvation can happen without the Sacrament of Baptism.  In fact, Miths' original formulation (of "through", which I correct to "before") was heretical.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 02:37:03 PM
.
Nice.  What does it say?

Stop being lazy and Google it up yourself, man.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Maria Regina on August 21, 2018, 02:48:16 PM
My sole purpose at this point is over the question of whether or not supernatural faith can be had prior to baptism.  If you agree with me that catechumens may have faith (per Denz. 798 ) then we can debate other points elsewhere.  If you disagree, then let's keep on with that thread and get a definition of supernatural faith produced.  As I said earlier, I have no interest in proceeding to later points if we're resting on a faulty premise of when faith (which is necessary for justification) can begin.

ETA: just to prevent any confusion with this or any other post, when I say "faith" in these contexts I always mean supernatural faith unless noted otherwise.  Not natural faith, not an act of faith, not a mere "awareness" of what God has revealed, but the virtue of supernatural faith, "without which it is impossible to please God."
Study the Rite of Baptism (pre-Vatican II) - provided below.  
See: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/18/latin-baptism-vs-new-rite-of-baptism/

Father Carita who died in 2012 stated, "This ancient catholic saying “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” means “As we pray so we believe”.   I think that the second part “Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi” which means “As we believe so we live” was added on later."  See: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/14/lex-orandi-lex-credendi-lex-vivendi-lex-provendi/


Immediately before baptism, the catechumen is asked if he believes. His response is "Credo."  It takes faith to believe. Thus, in order for an adult catechumen to be baptized, he needs to express his faith.

In the Early Church, the catechumen had to be living a life of faith before Baptism. His sponsors had to testify that he was already living a blameless life. That takes faith. With Baptism, the catechumen will be granted the fullness of faith.

Remember in the Holy Gospels, Christ asks various people who came to Him to be healed,  "Do you believe?"
He receives different responses. One stands out, "Lord I believe, help Thou my unbelief." Even though we have faith, even though we have been baptized, we can and should say this prayer everyday, so that we may persevere in the Holy Faith.


Posted on July 18, 2013 (http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/18/latin-baptism-vs-new-rite-of-baptism/) by Father Carota (http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/author/admin/)
Latin Baptism  ...



Here is the Latin Tridentine Baptism Rite. . . .

(http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Portugal-2.jpg) (http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Portugal-2.jpg)

The Rite of Baptism
 Part I
 Outside the Church
The priest (wearing a violet stole), sponsors, and the catechumen stand in the narthex of the church, symbolizing that at this point, the candidate is not a member of the Church.
The Questioning
Priest: N., what do you ask of the Church of God?Priest: N., quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Faith.Sponsor/Catechumen: Fidem.
Priest: What does Faith offer you?Priest: Fides, quid tibi præstat?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Life everlasting.Sponsor/Catechumen: Vitam æternam.
Priest: If then you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.’ Priest: Si igitur vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. Diligis Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex tota mente tua, et proximum tuum sicut teipsum.
The Exsufflation
The priest then breathes 3 times on the candidate in the form of a Cross, recalling the Spirit (breath, wind, “ruach”) of God.
Priest: Go forth from him (her), unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.Priest: Exi ab eo (ea), immunde spiritus, et da locuм Spiritui Sancto Paraclito.
 
The Sign of the Cross
The priest now makes the Sign of the Cross with his thumb on the candidate’s forehead and breast.
Priest: Receive the Sign of the Cross both upon your forehead + and also upon your heart +; take to you the faith of the heavenly precepts; and so order your life as to be, from henceforth, the temple of God.Priest: Accipe signum Crucis tam in fronte, quam in corde, sume fidem cælestium præceptorum: et talis esto moribus, ut templum Dei iam esse possis.
Priest: Let us pray: Mercifully hear our prayers, we beseech Thee, O Lord; and by Thy perpetual assistance keep this Thine elect, N, signed with the sign of the Lord’s cross, so that, preserving this first experience of the greatness of Thy glory, he (she) may deserve, by keeping Thy commandments, to attain to the glory of regeneration. Through Christ our Lord.Priest: Oremus: Preces nostras, quaesumus, Domine, clementer exaudi; et hunc electum tuum (hanc electam tuam), N. crucis Dominicae impressione signatum (-am), perpetua virtute custodi; ut magnitudinis gloriae tuae rudimenta servans, per custodiam mandatorum, ad regenerationis gloriam pervenire mereatur (-antur). Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.
The Imposition of Hands
The priest places his hands on the candidate’s head.
Priest: Let us pray: Almighty, everlasting God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look graciously down upon this Thy servant, N., whom Thou hast graciously called unto the beginnings of the faith; drive out from him (her) all blindness of heart; break all the toils of Satan wherewith he (she) was held: open unto him (her), O Lord, the gate of Thy loving kindness, that, being impressed with the sign of Thy wisdom, he (she) may be free from the foulness of all wicked desires, and in the sweet odor of Thy precepts may joyfully serve Thee in Thy Church, and grow in grace from day to day. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.Priest: Oremus: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, respice dignare super hunc famulum tuum (hanc famulam tuam), N, quem (quam) ad rudimenta fidei vocare dignatus es: omnem caecitatem cordi ab eo (ea) expelle: disrumpe omnes laqueos Satanae, quibus fuerat (-ant) colligatus (-a); aperi ei, Domine ianuam pietatis tuae imbutus (-a), omnium cupiditatum foetoribus careat (-ant), et ad suavem odorem praeceptorum tuorum laetus tibi in Ecclesia tua deserviat, et proficiat de die in diem Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Priest: Through the same Christ our Lord.Priest: Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Sponsor/Catechumen: AmenSponsor/Catechumen: Amen
The Imposition of Salt
Now the priest puts a little blessed salt (http://www.fisheaters.com/salt.html) in the candidate’s mouth. Salt is the symbol of that wisdom which gives a relish for the sweetness of divine nourishment; preserves, by the teaching of the Gospel, from the corruption of sin, and prevents evil passions from growing in men’s souls. Adult catechumens might be signed on the brow, ears, eyes, nostrils, mouth, breast, and between the shoulders before the imposition of salt. If this procedure is followed, afterwards the candidate will kneel, recite the Our Father several times, and a Cross is made on his forehead, first by the sponsor and then by the priest.
Priest: N., Receive the salt of wisdom; let it be to thee a token of mercy unto everlasting life. May it make your way easy to eternal life.Priest: N., accipe sal sapientiæ: propitiatio sit tibi in vitam æternam.
Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.
Priest: Peace be with you.Priest: Pax tecuм.
Sponsor/Catechumen: And with your spirit.Sponsor/Catechumen: Et cuм spiritu tuo.
Priest: Let us pray: O God of our fathers, O God the Author of all truth, vouchsafe, we humbly beseech Thee, to look graciously down upon this Thy servant, N., and as he (she) tastes this first nutriment of salt, suffer him (her) no longer to hunger for want of heavenly food, to the end that he (she) may be always fervent in spirit, rejoicing in hope, always serving Thy name. Lead him (her), O Lord, we beseech Thee, to the laver of the new regeneration, that, together with Thy faithful, he may deserve to attain the everlasting rewards of Thy promises. Through Christ our Lord.Priest: Oremus: Deus patrum nostrorum, Deus universae conditor veritatis, te supplices exoramus, ut hunc famulum tuum (hanc famulam tuam) respicere digneris propitius, et hoc primum pabulum salis gustantem, non diutius esurire permittas, quo minus cibo expleatur caelesti, quatenus sit semper spiritu fervens, spe gaudens, tuo semper nomini serviens. Perduc eum (eam), Domine, quaesumus ad novae regenerationis lavacrum, ut cuм fidelibus tuis promissionum tuarum aeterna praemia consequi mereatur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Priest: Through the same Christ our Lord.Priest: Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Sponsor/Catechumen: AmenSponsor/Catechumen: Amen
Part II:
 Admission into the Church Building
The Exorcism
The priest makes the Sign of the Cross over the
 candidate three times and says:
Priest: I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit, that thou goest out and depart from this servant of God, N. For He commands Thee, accursed one, Who walked upon the sea, and stretched out His right hand to Peter about to sink. Therefore, accursed devil, acknowledge thy sentence, and give honor to the living and true God: give honor to Jesus Christ His Son, and to the Holy Spirit; and depart from this servant of God, N. because God and our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call him (her) to His holy grace and benediction and to the font of Baptism.Priest: Exorcizo te, immunde spiritus, in nomine Patris + et Filii + et Spiritus + Sancti, ut exeas, et recedas ab hoc famulo (hac famula) Dei N.: ipse enim tibi imperat, maledicte damnate, qui pedibus super mare ambulavit, et Petro mergenti dexteram porrexit. Ergo, maledicte diabole, recognosce sententiam tuam, et da honorem Deo vivo et vero, da honorem Iesu Christo Filio eius, et Spiritui Sancto, et recede ab hoc famulo (hac famula) Dei N, quia istum (-am) sibi Deus et Dominus noster Iesus Christus ad suam sanctam gratiam, et benedictionem, fontemque Baptismatis vocare dignatus est.
The Sign of the Cross
The priest again makes the Sign of the Cross on the candidate’s forehead
Priest: And this sign of the holy Cross, which we make upon his (her) forehead, do thou, accursed devil, never dare to violate.Priest: Et hoc signum sanctae Crucis, + quod nos fronti eius damus, tu, maledicte diabole, numquam audeas violare.
Priest: Through the same Christ our Lord.Priest: Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Sponsor/Catechumen: AmenSponsor/Catechumen: Amen
The Imposition of Hands
For the final time, the priest lays his hand on the candidate’s head
Priest: Let us pray: O Holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, Author of light and truth, I implore Thine everlasting and most just goodness upon this Thy servant N., that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to enlighten him (her) with the light of Thy wisdom: cleanse him (her) and sanctify him (her), give unto him (her) true knowledge; that, being made worthy of the grace of Thy Baptism, he (she) may hold firm hope, right counsel and holy doctrine.Priest: Oremus: Aeternam, ac iustissimam pietatem tuam deprecor, Domine, sancte Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, auctor luminis et veritatis, super hunc famulum tuum (hanc famulam tuam) N, ut digneris eum (eam) illuminare lumine intelligentiae tuae: munda eum (eam), et sanctifica: da ei scientiam veram, ut, dignus (-a) gratia Baptismi tui effectus (-a), teneat (-ant) firmam spem, consilium rectum, doctrinam sanctam.
Priest:Through Christ our Lord.Priest: Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.
Admission into the Church Building
The priest lays the end of his stole on the candidate as a symbol of his priestly authority, and admits him into the church building, which is the symbol of the Church of Christ. If the catechumen is an adult and was annointed in Part I above, he may be asked to lie prostrate before the Altar in adoration of Christ before this next step.
Priest: N., enter thou into the temple of God, that thou mayest have part with Christ unto life everlasting.Priest: N., ingredere in templum Dei, ut habeas (-ant) partem cuм Christo in vitam aeternam.
Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.
The Credo and Pater
Sponsor/Catechumen: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into Hell. On the third day, He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence shall He come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem cæli et terræ. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicuм, Dominum nostrum: qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus: descendit ad inferos; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad cælos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, Sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam æternam. Amen.
Sponsor/Catechumen: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation: but deliver us from evil. Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cælo, et in terra. Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem: sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
Part III
 In the Nave of the Church
The Solemn Exorcism
Priest: I exorcise thee, every unclean spirit, in the name of God the Father + Almighty, in the name of Jesus + Christ, His Son, our Lord and Judge, and in the power of the Holy + Spirit, that thou be depart from this creature of God N, which our Lord hath deigned to call unto His holy temple, that it may be made the temple of the living God, and that the Holy Spirit may dwell therein. Through the same Christ our Lord, who shall come to judge the living and the dead, and the world by firePriest: Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei + Patris omnipotentis, et in nomine Iesu + Christi Filii eius, Domini et Iudicis nostri, et in virtute Spiritus + Sancti, ut discedas ab hoc plasmate Dei N, quod Dominus noster ad templum sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fiat templum Dei vivi, et Spiritus Sanctus habitet in eo. Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos, et saeculum per ignem.
The Ephpheta
The priest takes a little spittle and touches the ears and nostrils of the candidate with it. For health reasons, the use of spittle may be omitted. This rite comes from Mark 7:33-35, when Jesus healed the deaf-mute: “And taking him from the multitude apart, he put his fingers into his ears: and spitting, he touched his tongue. And looking up to heaven, he groaned and said to him: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened. And immediately his ears were opened and the string of his tongue was loosed and he spoke right.”.
Priest: Ephpheta, that is to say, Be opened, for an odour of sweetness. Be thou, devil, begone; for the judgement of God shall draw near.Priest: Ephpheta, quod est, Adaperire. In odorem suavitatis. Tu autem effugare, diabole; appropinquabit enim iudicium Dei.
The Renunciation of Satan
Priest: N., do you renounce Satan?Priest: N., abrenuntias Satanæ?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.Sponsor/Catechumen: Abrenuntio.
Priest: And all of his works?Priest: Et omnibus operibus eius?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.Sponsor/Catechumen: Abrenuntio.
Priest: And all his pomps?Priest: Et omnibus pompis eius?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.Sponsor/Catechumen: Abrenuntio.
The Annointing
The priest annoints the candidate with the oil of catechumens (http://www.fisheaters.com/holyoils.html) on the heart and between the shoulders in the form of a Cross, saying:
Priest: I annoint you + with the oil of salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord, that you may have everlasting life.Priest: Ego te linio Oleo salutis in Christo Iesu Domino nostro, ut habeas vitam æternam.
Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.
Part IV
 At the Font
The priest removes his violet stole and puts on a white one.
The Profession of Faith
Priest: N., do you believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth?Priest: N., credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem cæli et terram ?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do believe.Sponsor/Catechumen: Credo.
Priest: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, Who was born and Who suffered?Priest: Credis in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicuм, Dominum nostrum, natum, et passum?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do believe.Sponsor/Catechumen: Credo.
Priest: Do you believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting?Priest: Credis et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, Sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, et vitam æternam?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do believe.Sponsor/Catechumen: Credo.
Baptism (Matter and Form of the Sacrament)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 02:50:49 PM
Ladislaus-

Please cite any approved theologian, pope, saint, or council proclaiming those who die justified have any other possibility than salvation?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 21, 2018, 02:57:20 PM
Ladislaus-

Please cite any approved theologian, pope, saint, or council proclaiming those who die justified have any other possibility than salvation?

Again, you're missing the point, since logic is not SeanJohnson's strength.  I'm saying that it's not possible that God would allow anyone who perseveres in justification to die without the Sacrament.  But I personally don't believe that justification is possible before Baptism (where I'm not in complete agreement with Father Feeney.)

If any died in a state of justification without/before Baptism, then it would have been St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist.  But they did not enter into the beatific vision due to some ontological defect that prevented this.  So here's a situation where justification doesn't not inherently mean salvation and beatific vision.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 03:02:29 PM
Again, you're missing the point, since logic is not SeanJohnson's strength.  I'm saying that it's not possible that God would allow anyone who perseveres in justification to die without the Sacrament.  But I personally don't believe that justification is possible before Baptism (where I'm not in complete agreement with Father Feeney.)

Just answer the question please:

Is it theologically possible that any of those who die justified are damned?

If you answer yes, can you provide a single citation to back it?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 21, 2018, 03:06:01 PM
Forgive me, but you appear to just be begging the question, and aside from that, jumping quite a bit ahead.  All I've been talking about for three pages is faith.  That's it, nothing else.  My sole purpose at this point is over the question of whether or not supernatural faith can be had prior to baptism.  If you agree with me that catechumens may have faith (per Denz. 798 ) then we can debate other points elsewhere.  If you disagree, then let's keep on with that thread and get a definition of supernatural faith produced.  As I said earlier, I have no interest in proceeding to later points if we're resting on a faulty premise of when faith (which is necessary for justification) can begin.

ETA: just to prevent any confusion with this or any other post, when I say "faith" in these contexts I always mean supernatural faith unless noted otherwise.  Not natural faith, not an act of faith, not a mere "awareness" of what God has revealed, but the virtue of supernatural faith, "without which it is impossible to please God."

I do not believe that catechumens can possess supernatural Faith before the Sacrament; only natural.

Even if they are somehow able to attain it, I do not know how this Faith alone can be sufficient for salvation. Is supernatural Faith the only requirement for salvation or even Justification? No, that is only a fraction of it.

I think the most authoritative definition of supernatural Faith is that given in Vatican I Council, Third Session, Chapter 3.

Quote
Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived. Faith, declares the Apostle, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen [17].

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 03:10:03 PM
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I emphasized a few things for convenience.  Mainly, that Trent is describing the acquisition of supernatural faith on the part of the catechumen.

Trent does neither speak of "supernatural faith" nor of an "acquisition of faith". Obviously the term is not needed in the context of Justification.

Trent explains what "conceiving faith by hearing" means. It means that the catechumens "are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised".

All what is described in Chapter VI (The manner of Preparation) is not Justification but only preparation. Chapter VII (What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof) starts with "This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself". Consequently, Justification has not yet happened when the catechumen has "conceived faith by hearing". Also, no sanctification has happened yet, because "Justification itself, is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man". Furthermore, the "impious", the "man of unjust", having "conceived faith by hearing", has not yet become "just". A "man of unjust becomes just" only "by Justification itself" which does not happen before "disposition, or preparation" is over.

Hence, to "conceive faith by hearing", does neither justify, nor sanctify, nor make the catechumen "an heir according to hope of life everlasting". Neither does it "communicate the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ".

All this is clear from Chapter VI. and the first sentence of Chapter VII (see quote from papalencyclicals.net below).

Then Chapter VII says that the instrumental cause of Justification is the sacrament of baptism. By the sacrament of baptism the "impious" are justified. Faith, hope, and charity are gifts that are not infused before the sacrament od baptism. The infused faith could rightly be called 'supernatural faith', because it is infused and not just a human belief or conviction.


Quote from: Trent, Decree on Justification
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, 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 which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Maria Regina on August 21, 2018, 03:11:17 PM

If any died in a state of justification without/before Baptism, then it would have been St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist.  But they did not enter into the beatific vision due to some ontological defect that prevented this.  So here's a situation where justification doesn't not inherently mean salvation and beatific vision.
St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, St. Anna (the mother of the BVM), and all those righteous ones who died before Christ's Holy Passion, Death, and Resurrection, including St. Dismas, the Good Thief on the Cross, were granted the grace to repent of any sins and were justified by Christ when He descended into Hades for three days, preached to the Old Testament Saints, set them free from the bonds of Hades, and opened Paradise to them.

Noteworthy, the Church honors St. Joseph the Beloved, St. John the Forerunner, and St. Anna as three of our greatest saints.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 03:23:44 PM
In other words, God damns the just.

Got it.

:popcorn:

Nobody is just, if he hasn't received the sacrament of baptism. Before baptism, men are "impious" and "unjust". Read cuм hoc tempore!
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 03:26:22 PM
Father Feeney holds that God will never allow the justified to die without the Sacrament.

Trent teaches: Nobody is justified, if he hasn't received the sacrament of baptism. If Feeney holds what you say, he doesn't believe what Trent teaches.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 03:32:24 PM
Nobody is just, if he hasn't received the sacrament of baptism. Before baptism, men are "impious" and "unjust". Read cuм hoc tempore!

Then the old Catholic Encyclopedia is heretical in its description of the “limbus patrum” when it describes it as:

In theological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the just who, although purified (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm) from sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), were excluded from the beatific vision (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm) until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm) (the "limbus patrum")

How were these souls justified if there was no baptism?

Are you so intransigent and obstinate that you would judge the CE heretical, rather than backing away from your erroneous opinion?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 03:34:08 PM
From Trent on Justification, Chapter 6:
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm)


CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

--Catholics believe that one cannot have faith, hope or charity without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

--Catholics believe that one's free will, moved and excited by God (i.e. actual grace) is a co-oerating factor for being properly disposed to receive justification.  Receiving justification is NOT a passive action, which can't be refused and over which man has no consent.  In other words, God does not force grace on people.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

--Faith alone does not provide justification.  (This canon alone, destroys BOD, for it shows that an implicit desire by a non-catholic is insufficient for salvation.)  To be justified requires a proper preparation and dispostion, which only comes "by hearing" the truths of the Faith, in their details, so that the non-catholic understands Catholicism's beliefs.  An implicit, hazy, generalized "love of God" does not suffice for the reception of justification, and certainly not Baptism.


In the Preamble to these decrees, Trent explains that:
Chapter I:  The inability for Nature or the Law to Justify

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that (paraphrasing)...

Summary:  One must believe in Original Sin, free will and the impairment of human nature.

--(An ignorant person, or a muslim/hindu/etc does not believe in original sin, so BOD is not possible for them; only for a catechumen.)


Chapter 2:  On the Incarnation
Summary:  One must believe in the Incarnation and its necessity

--(Same as above...BOD is only possible for a catechumen)


Chapter 3:  Who are Justified through Christ
Summary:  One must believe that through Original Sin, all are born in sin and require a Redeemer, who is Christ, who died for our sins, and provided a way to become adopted sons of God and have our sins washed away.  These graces are for all men, though not all will receive them.

--(Same as above...)


Chapter 4: Justification of the Impious and the Law of Grace
Summary:  One cannot have grace and be re-born except through Baptism, whereby we are justified through it, or the desire thereof. 

--(This desire must be explicitly FOR BAPTISM, and not just FOR GOD.  An ignorant person cannot desire baptism, so they can't be justified.  Ignorance isn't a virtue; it's a punishment for sin).


Chapter 5: On the Necessity, in adults, of a Preparation for Justification

Summary:  The beginning of justification is by God's grace, where sinful men are called, through no merits of their own; those who are called are quickened by God's grace to co-operate with the illumination of the Holy Ghost, yet sinful man has the power to reject this illumination, but this illumination is not due to their free will. 

--(If man does not receive the Holy Ghost's illumination, he cannot be justified.  Ergo, BOD is not possible for those who haven't received illumination from the Holy Ghost, for by definition an ignorant person hasn't received any illumination from God.  Further, an ignorant person or a "good willed" Muslm haven't had ANY preparation for baptism.  A desire "for God or heaven" is not sufficient.)


Chapter 6: The manner of Preparation
Summary:  Those are disposed to unto justice, who assisted by Divine Grace (i.e. actual grace), conceiving faith by hearing (i.e. have an idea of the Church), are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,...understanding themselves to be sinners...turn from the fear of divine justice towards the mercy of God...confiding, by hope, that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake.

...they begin to love God as the fountain of justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism:  lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.

Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.


--(An ignorant person cannot purpose to receive Baptism, or begin a new life.  They can, arguably, decide to keep the commandments, since all these are written in man's heart, except for the first 3, being the Divine Commandments, which they would learn about during their "hearing" of the Faith.  But since they haven't heard, being still ignorant, they cannot decide to keep ALL the commandments.

Secondly, one who desires to receive baptism, even if they are muslim, hindu, etc cannot be properly called a muslim or hindu anymore, for if they truly desire to enter the Church and to being a new spiritual life, they will have had to discard their erroneous religion in order to accept Christ's.  Therefore, it is wrong to say that muslims or hindus etc can receive BOD, since Trent tells us that only those who desire the Faith (i.e. catechumens) are properly disposed to receive baptism.  Therefore, as Trent teaches, only formal catechumens are properly disposed and prepared to receive Baptism, whether in fact or by desire.)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Mithrandylan on August 21, 2018, 03:48:00 PM
The tempers are certainly running high now, which is usually when I bow out.  I'll kindly request that any of my interlocutors (or Sean Johnson) PM me when it gets back on track.  I've singularly endeavored, for five pages now, to only discuss one argument (not a "conflation" of them, as Lad contends-- he has a bad habit of setting up strawmen so that he can feed his bizarrely masochistic obsession with unorthodoxy).  I don't like sounding like a broken record, so that's it for me.  I truly fear adopting the sort of impatience and eagerness to discover error so rampant among some of the posters in this thread.  I think that's soul-destroying.  Where your treasure is, there is your heart. 

I certainly won't ask (even less expect) an apology, but I gave no heretical formulations (that's twice, without batting an eye, that Lad has thrown this type of charge my way, never substantiated).  Ladislaus is so committed to unearthing unorthodoxy that he's starting to invent it.  Rather than assuming that one understands, go to my posting history and look for the formulation in question.  ctrl+f will be your friend.   https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=2023

I'll leave you guys with this consideration from Pope Pius XI's most trusted moral theologian, Fr. Vermeersch:


Quote
Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church. The bitterness of some men's writing is very exasperating, and irritation will sometimes bring down a tottering structure which a little kindness might have saved. What would have become of Abelard without the gentleness of Peter the Venerable? Charity has good, not evil, for its object; it would rather win hearts by gentleness than humiliate them by an assumption of superiority. Be courteous; in the fight against error treat your adversary with deference. And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation.

We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit. In our own day especially, when men love to make a show of sincerity, and when so many honest but mistaken souls are yearning for the truth, let us count Christian loyalty as one of the most powerful influences to induce men to accept the gift of faith. Defective arguments weaken sound propositions; false statements embitter disputes, perpetuate controversies, multiply misunderstandings, and give an opening for crushing rejoinders. An arrogant and uncompromising tone in an author makes men reluctant to listen to his arguments, and anxious to see him proved to be wrong. We do not establish a truth by showing that there is little evidence to support it; we cannot eradicate error by making it look like truth; and we cannot hope to persuade a reader if we begin by exciting his antipathy. There is much sound sense as well as humour in the words of St. Augustine: "Wolves sometimes disguise themselves in sheep's clothing, but that is no reason why sheep should change their skins.” Those victories alone give glory to Christ which are won by the weapons of Christ, for these are the weapons of justice.5 To wish for no other victory, we need great self-control, perfect confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth, zeal untainted by unworthy motives; and this self-control, this confidence, this zeal, enhance the private virtue of tolerance, and invite the admiration of all men. ("On Tolerance", 1913)
.
See you guys later
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 04:08:26 PM
This is correct, and the vast majority of BoDers fall into heresy on this point.  Elsewhere, Trent explicitly taught that, in the case of Confession, perfect contrition without the Sacrament of Confession did not suffice to restore the soul to a state of justification, that the Sacrament is necessary as the instrumental cause.  Same thing must be said for Baptism, but many BoDers deny this and claim, quite heretically, that justification and salvation can happen without the Sacrament of Baptism.  In fact, Miths' original formulation (of "through", which I correct to "before") was heretical.

Yes, the Council of Trent teaches that perfect contrition (in case of a baptized person), which includes the explicit desire for the sacrament of confession, restores the sould to the state of justification.

And no, same thing must not be said for baptism, since the Council does not teach such a thing and forbids to teach otherwise.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 04:16:33 PM
Quote
Is it theologically possible that any of those who die justified are damned?

If you answer yes, can you provide a single citation to back it?
Is it theologically possible that any who die justified but not baptized go to heaven?  (p.s. some catechumens were baptized, though they were referred to catechumens still).
If yes, provide a citiation.
I'll wager there are no theological opinions for either case because it's a question the Church has yet to answer.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:23:29 PM
Yes, the Council of Trent teaches that perfect contrition (in case of a baptized person), which includes the explicit desire for the sacrament of confession, restores the sould to the state of justification.

And no, same thing must not be said for baptism, since the Council does not teach such a thing and forbids to teach otherwise.

And yet the CE teaches us that the “limbus patrum” was the place or state  where the souls of the just (even though there was no baptism) were detained until Christ’s ascension.

For your (mis)reading of Trent to be correct, the existence of the “limbus patrum” is an impossibility.

And of course, none of the theologians who describe the “limbus patrum” thusly (which is the common and constant doctrine of the Church) realized they were running afoul of Trent.

Nor did any of the censors librorum notice.

It wasn’t until Fr Feeney’s disciples “discovered” all these errors that we are finally able to go back and correct all these “errors” (and I won’t even mention the implications present regarding indefectability and infallibility bound up in making such an absurd argument.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 04:24:53 PM
Then the old Catholic Encyclopedia is heretical in its description of the “limbus patrum” when it describes it as:

In theological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm) usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the just who, although purified (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm) from sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), were excluded from the beatific vision (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm) until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm) (the "limbus patrum")

How were these souls justified if there was no baptism?

Are you so intransigent and obstinate that you would judge the CE heretical, rather than backing away from your erroneous opinion?

I am talking about Justification as declared and defined by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, Justification "under the law of grace" and "since the promulgation of the Gospel".
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 04:28:19 PM
Quote
And yet the CE teaches us that the “limbus patrum” was the place or state  where the souls of the just (even though there was no baptism) were detained until Christ’s ascension.

For your (mis)reading of Trent to be correct, the existence of the “limbus patrum” is an impossibility.
The Old Testament saints were justified and adopted sons of God, due to following the Old Law, which is analogous to Baptism in the New Law.  The reason they were in Limbo was because Heaven was still closed due to Original Sin (opened at Christ's ascension), not because they hadn't been baptized.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:28:50 PM
Is it theologically possible that any who die justified but not baptized go to heaven?  (p.s. some catechumens were baptized, though they were referred to catechumens still).
If yes, provide a citiation.
I'll wager there are no theological opinions for either case because it's a question the Church has yet to answer.

You mean like every soul in the “limbus patrum?”

Ps: I saw a question in your response (which I have just answered), but I did not see an answer.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:31:13 PM
The Old Testament saints were justified and adopted sons of God, due to following the Old Law, which is analogous to Baptism in the New Law.  The reason they were in Limbo was because Heaven was still closed due to Original Sin (opened at Christ's ascension), not because they hadn't been baptized.

They were still stained with original sin, were unbaptized, justified, and saved.

Ps: Without realizing it, you have just refuted your ally’s contention that no unbaptized person is justified.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Quote
Is it theologically possible that any of those who die justified are damned?
Based on the general truths the Church has issued, they would go to Limbo, since they aren't full members of the Church, with no baptismal character and no infused theological virtues.  However, the Church is not said SPECIFICALLY on this case, so I don't know.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 04:37:17 PM
Quote
They were still stained with original sin, were unbaptized, justified, and saved.
?? Circuмcision,as the initiation rite of the Old Law, remitted Original Sin and put one into a state of justification, similar to Baptism.  The only difference between the Old and New Laws, was the necessity of those under the Old Law to wait for a Redeemer to pay for sin and open the gates of heaven.
Comparing the Old Law saints to a justified/unbaptized New Law person is comparing steak to spam.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:38:54 PM
Based on the general truths the Church has issued, they would go to Limbo, since they aren't full members of the Church, with no baptismal character and no infused theological virtues.  However, the Church is not said SPECIFICALLY on this case, so I don't know.


“General truths?”

Can you produce a single quote from an approved theologian, Saint, council, or pope opining or teaching that, in the Christian Era (the limbus patrum having passed away), a man who dies justified can have any possible eventual destiny besides the beatific vision?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:40:37 PM
?? Circuмcision,as the initiation rite of the Old Law, remitted Original Sin and put one into a state of justification, similar to Baptism.  The only difference between the Old and New Laws, was the necessity of those under the Old Law to wait for a Redeemer to pay for sin and open the gates of heaven.
Comparing the Old Law saints to a justified/unbaptized New Law person is comparing steak to spam.

No, no, no:

The argument being made is that all (ALL!) who die without baptism die unjustified.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 04:44:30 PM
Quote
The argument being made is that all (ALL!) who die without baptism die unjustified.
I never argued that.  Baptism wasn't required for the Old Law, so when Baptism is referenced, I'm speaking of the New Law.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 04:47:03 PM
No, no, no:

The argument being made is that all (ALL!) who die without baptism die unjustified.

You post to fast. You should read what has been posted before posting yourself.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
I never argued that.  Baptism wasn't required for the Old Law, so when Baptism is referenced, I'm speaking of the New Law.

An excellent refutation of Struthio's contention that NOBODY is justified without baptism.

As regards Christian times, please explain how one can be in the state of sanctifying grace, but not justified (e.g., One with perfect contrition for his sins, but not baptized), and then explain how such a one can be damned.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 04:56:40 PM
1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord ("Dominicus character") "for the day of redemption." 86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." 87 The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith," 88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

The Catechism teaches that the baptismal mark is necessary for the beatific vision.


St Alphonsus says that BOD does not provide the indelible mark.

But 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, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

Ergo, it is unclear what happens to an unbaptized but justified person when they die.  The Church does not clearly say.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 04:58:41 PM
1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord ("Dominicus character") "for the day of redemption." 86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." 87 The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith," 88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

The Catechism teaches that the baptismal mark is necessary for the beatific vision.


St Alphonsus says that BOD does not provide the indelible mark.

But 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, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

Ergo, it is unclear what happens to an unbaptized but justified person when they die.  The Church does not clearly say.

It is the effect which saves, not the mark (i.e., the infusion of sanctifying grace).

Please revert to my previous questions and respond to them.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 05:05:24 PM
1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord ("Dominicus character") "for the day of redemption." 86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." 87 The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith," 88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

The Catechism teaches that the baptismal mark is necessary for the beatific vision.


St Alphonsus says that BOD does not provide the indelible mark.

But 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, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

Ergo, it is unclear what happens to an unbaptized but justified person when they die.  The Church does not clearly say.

Nothing is unclear, given that the Council of Trent has decreed and defined it all, and that the Vatican Council has made it part of the Profession of Faith. St Alphonsus is irrelevant. Catholics believe what the infallible Magisterium teaches and do not attack the infallible Magisterium using the writings of fallible Saints and fallible Doctors of the Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 05:12:08 PM
Nothing is unclear, given that the Council of Trent has decreed and defined it all, and that the Vatican Council has made it part of the Profession of Faith. St Alphonsus is irrelevant. Catholics believe what the infallible Magisterium teaches and do not attack the infallible Magisterium using the writings of fallible Saints and fallible Doctors of the Church.

Then thank goodness we have you to clear up all these Popes, saints, and theologians misunderstandings of Trent and Vatican I (which all say the opposite of you)!
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 05:16:35 PM
PS: Still awaiting that elusive citation from any pope, saint, council, or approved theologian stating the destiny of a justified soul can be anything other than salvation.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 21, 2018, 05:21:02 PM
Before anything, what exactly are you saying is  part of the ordinary magisterium, what precisely are you talking about and defending,  explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or salvation by implicit faith (salvation by belief  in a God that rewards)?

Let's be precise before we discuss anything having to do with this "greased pig" (for BOD can mean anything from explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen to salvation in any religion or no religion) or we'll never get ahold of it (this thread will go forever).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Mithrandylan,

You never responded to my post above from page 3, perhaps you didn't see it? Please respond.
In my LONG experience with defenders of baptism of desire, I have come to the conclusion that I can safely say that 99% of those that defend BOD are really defending their belief that people in any and all religions can be saved without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. The fact that the gentleman above avoids my question just confirms that he is part of the 99%. I have never had one of them answer my question directly without having to endure endless double speak, digressions and deflectionsof every kind. 

Frankly, I will never understand why the defenders of the sacrament of baptism and EENS waste their time talking to these people about baptism of desire of the catechumen, when 99% of these people believe that anyone can be saved  in any and all religions without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 05:26:36 PM
In my LONG experience with defenders of baptism of desire, I have leaned that I can safely say that 99% of those that defend BOD are really defending their belief that people in any and all religions can be saved without without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. The fact that the person above avoids my question just confirms that he is part of the 99%. I have never had one of them answer my question directly without having to endure endless double speak, digressions and deflectionsof every kind.

You mean like how you will not be able to find a single pope, council, saint, or approved theologian arguing that the souls of those who die justified could nevertheless be damned?

PS: I notice you ignored Mith's response to you, but were emboldened by his announcement that he was checking out of this thread.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 05:31:34 PM
Then thank goodness we have you to clear up all these Popes, saints, and theologians misunderstandings of Trent and Vatican I (which all say the opposite of you)!

If I find popes, saints, or theologians, or whomever, contradicting the Council of Trent or the Vatican Council (or any other ecuмenical council), I use the rule of faith given by these councils to measure them. That's what ecuмenical councils are for. That's why we have a solemn extraordinary Magisterium. To give us the means to be able to detect errors or even wolves.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 21, 2018, 05:34:34 PM
You mean like how you will not be able to find a single pope, council, saint, or approved theologian arguing that the souls of those who die justified could nevertheless be damned?
There goes another deflection by the OP. The subject of this thread is his belief that people in any and all religions can be saved without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

There is not one single saint that taught what he believes, that people in any and all religions can be saved without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. His teaching gets it's authority from Vatican II.


Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 21, 2018, 05:38:41 PM
I repeat to all the defenders of the sacrament of baptism,  EENS, and the Athanasian Creed:


Quote
Frankly, I will never understand why the defenders of the sacrament of baptism and EENS waste their time talking to these people about baptism of desire of the catechumen, when 99% of these people believe that anyone can be saved  in any and all religions without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 06:25:43 PM

Quote
As regards Christian times, please explain how one can be in the state of sanctifying grace, but not justified (e.g., One with perfect contrition for his sins, but not baptized), and then explain how such a one can be damned.
One cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace yet unjustified.  Means the same thing.

Being baptized makes one a member of the Church (i.e. which is what the indelible mark signifies).  If one is justified but not a member of the Church, then how can they enter heaven?  An unbaptized but justified person would not be "damned", they would go to the Limbo of the just, just like unbaptized infants.  Limbo is a place of natural happiness, not a punishment.  However, if you want to split hairs, and consider Limbo to be part of hell, (since it's not heaven) then ok, by that definition they would be in hell, but not damned.

It's important to remember that all of this discussion was explained by Trent under the heading of "justification".  Trent never equated BOD and justification with salvation.  An unbaptized but justified person still has one final, but important step to take.  At the end of the day, this is all theoretical anyways.  Maybe it's never happened?  No docuмented cases exist.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 06:31:51 PM
Quote
The subject of this thread is his belief that people in any and all religions can be saved without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
Yes, Sean, you are off topic.  Trent clearly says in Chapter 6 on Justification that ONLY those who believe in 1) Original Sin, 2) the Incarnation/Trinity, 3) the Redemption by Christ, 4) accept the truths of the faith, 5) have a conversion of heart and reject sin, with the intention to follow the 10 commandments, 6) resolve to get baptized and enter the Church....all of this is REQUIRED for one to receive BOD.

Anything less and one is not able to receive BOD.  Your and +ABL's view of BOD is heretical, per Trent.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 06:40:34 PM
One cannot be in the state of sanctifying grace yet unjustified.  Means the same thing.

Being baptized makes one a member of the Church (i.e. which is what the indelible mark signifies).  If one is justified but not a member of the Church, then how can they enter heaven?  An unbaptized but justified person would not be "damned", they would go to the Limbo of the just, just like unbaptized infants.  Limbo is a place of natural happiness, not a punishment.  However, if you want to split hairs, and consider Limbo to be part of hell, (since it's not heaven) then ok, by that definition they would be in hell, but not damned.

It's important to remember that all of this discussion was explained by Trent under the heading of "justification".  Trent never equated BOD and justification with salvation.  An unbaptized but justified person still has one final, but important step to take.  At the end of the day, this is all theoretical anyways.  Maybe it's never happened?  No docuмented cases exist.

Because by sanctifying grace he is joined to the Church, without being a member of it.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
One who is in sanctifying grace is not necessarily a member of the Church, as Trent explains.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 06:42:55 PM
Yes, Sean, you are off topic.  Trent clearly says in Chapter 6 on Justification that ONLY those who believe in 1) Original Sin, 2) the Incarnation/Trinity, 3) the Redemption by Christ, 4) accept the truths of the faith, 5) have a conversion of heart and reject sin, with the intention to follow the 10 commandments, 6) resolve to get baptized and enter the Church....all of this is REQUIRED for one to receive BOD.

Anything less and one is not able to receive BOD.  Your and +ABL's view of BOD is heretical, per Trent.

Another dodge.

For the 5th time:

Please cite any pope, council, theologian, or saint who taught the possibility of a soul dying in the state of grace being damned.

If you do not do so this time, I will consider you to have conceded that all the just are saved, and progress from there.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 06:44:44 PM
Already answered:

An unbaptized but justified person would not be "damned", they would go to the Limbo of the just, just like unbaptized infants.  Limbo is a place of natural happiness, not a punishment.  However, if you want to split hairs, and consider Limbo to be part of hell, (since it's not heaven) then ok, by that definition they would be in hell, but not damned.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 06:45:41 PM
One who is in sanctifying grace is not necessarily a member of the Church, as Trent explains.  

See previous post.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 06:58:52 PM
An unbaptized but justified person

I have never heard of an "unbaptized but justified person" other than by folks who say that this idea is an idea of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now, a single Jesuit priest is not exactly a source of the Catholic Faith.

How can an unbaptized person be justified, while the Council of Trent teaches that the instrumental cause of Justification is the sacrament of baptism?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 07:14:08 PM
Limbo is a place of natural happiness, not a punishment.  However, if you want to split hairs, and consider Limbo to be part of hell, (since it's not heaven) then ok, by that definition they would be in hell, but not damned.

Apropos "punishment" and "not damned". To insist on terminology of the Church: Pope Pius VI calls those in Limbo  "punished with the punishment of the condemned" though "exclusive of the punishment of fire".

Quote from: Denzinger
1526 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 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,--false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
Source (http://patristica.net/denzinger/)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 07:33:57 PM
@Mithrandylan

Quote from: Denzinger
1522 22. The proposition which declares that faith, "from which begins the series of graces, and through which, as the first voice, we are called to salvation and to the Church": is the very excellent virtue itself of faith by which men are called and are the faithful; just as if that grace were not prior, which "as it precedes the will, so it precedes faith also" (from St. August.,De dono persev., c.16, n. 41),---suspected of heresy, and savoring of it, elsewhere condemned in Quesnel [see n. 1377], erroneous.

source (http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n1300)


This shows that the faith through which we are called to salvation and to the Church is not the very excellent virtue itself of faith by which men are called the faithful and are the faithful.

This is another answer of the Magisterium of the Church to your question whether "receiving faith by hearing" or "conceiving faith by hearing" is the "supernatural faith" (as you call it). The answer here again is: negative!
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 08:24:11 PM
As Last Tradhican points out, it is a waste of time to debate the eternal place of a justified but unbaptized person (ie a formal catechumen).  My opinion is, they would go to limbo.  Is it possible they would go to heaven?  Some theologians think so.  It is open for debate.  Whatever you think, it’s not heresy because the Church has not ruled on this precise question. 

—-
The problematic question which started this thread is the question of an unbaptized Muslim or the “invincibly ignorant”.  Trent teaches, unequivocally, that there are requirements for one to be justified before baptism and neither of the above 2 classes of people qualify, as Sean and +ABL contend.  

As I pointed out earlier, a Muslim who would be properly disposed for BOD, would necessarily not be a Muslim anymore, since he would’ve had to renounce his religion and take formal classes, believing in the incarnation, original sin, etc.  Therefore, it is ABSOLUTELY AGAINST TRENT to say that ANYONE can be saved either “in their false religions” or “in spite of them”, as +ABL wrongly asserted.  Anyone who would receive BOD would be a catholic “in process”.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 08:43:33 PM
As Last Tradhican points out, it is a waste of time to debate the eternal place of a justified but unbaptized person (ie a formal catechumen).  My opinion is, they would go to limbo.  Is it possible they would go to heaven?  Some theologians think so.  It is open for debate.  Whatever you think, it’s not heresy because the Church has not ruled on this precise question.

—-
The problematic question which started this thread is the question of an unbaptized Muslim or the “invincibly ignorant”.  Trent teaches, unequivocally, that there are requirements for one to be justified before baptism and neither of the above 2 classes of people qualify, as Sean and +ABL contend.  

As I pointed out earlier, a Muslim who would be properly disposed for BOD, would necessarily not be a Muslim anymore, since he would’ve had to renounce his religion and take formal classes, believing in the incarnation, original sin, etc.  Therefore, it is ABSOLUTELY AGAINST TRENT to say that ANYONE can be saved either “in their false religions” or “in spite of them”, as +ABL wrongly asserted.  Anyone who would receive BOD would be a catholic “in process”.

Pax-

Let's say there is a 7 yr-old Russian Orthodox boy.

He has attained the age of reason.

He has never heard the claims of the Catholic Church regarding EENS, but he does believe that he must avoid and confess sins, receive Holy Communion, attend Mass, etc.

In short, he desires to do whatever God would require of him (even though he does not know what all of those things are).

There being no obex gratiae (i.e., obstacle) to preclude the transfer of sanctifying grace, he is most certainly in that state (ie., justified).

Suddenly he dies.

Do you deny that such a one is joined to the Catholic Church (while not being a member of it), through said grace, even though he never explicitly desired it?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 08:45:00 PM
A Practical Commentary On Holy Scripture by Frederick Justus Knecht D.D.

CHAPTER XCII

THE CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/knecht/untitled-189.shtml#_Toc385594913

The graces of Redemption can be received only through the Church. When our Lord Jesus revealed Himself to Saul, He might Himself have imparted to him all necessary instruction, and the grace of regeneration. He did not, however, do so, but sent to him the priest Ananias to teach him and baptize him. Our Blessed Lord acted in the same way regarding the conversion of Cornelius. He neither taught him directly Himself, nor by the mouth of an angel, but commanded him to send for Peter, and hear his words. Nor did the wonderful outpouring of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius and his companions make Baptism superfluous; for each one had to be baptized, and be thus received into the Church by her ministers. It is only by the exercise of the threefold—teaching, pastoral, and priestly—office of the Church, that men can be united and reconciled to our Lord Jesus Christ. He who despises and neglects the means of grace entrusted to the Church cannot receive grace; and he who says that the priesthood is unnecessary, falls into a most fatal error. St. Paul writes thus (1 Cor. 4:1): “Let a man so account of us as the ministers of God, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

Baptism is the first and most necessary of the Sacraments. The Holy Ghost descended visibly on Corneiius and his companions, and imparted to them the gift of tongues, in order to convince the Jєωιѕн Christians that the Gentiles need not first become Jєωs before they could receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost. This outpouring of the Holy Ghost prepared them for a worthy reception of holy Baptism, but it was only by their Baptism that they received the grace of regeneration, and became members of the Body of Christ, that is, His Church.

The good works of sinners. Cornelius was convinced of the nothingness of the pagan gods, and believed in One Invisible God, the Creator of heaven and earth. He also observed the moral law which God has written in the hearts of men, and which He revealed in the ten Commandments. He constantly prayed to God for guidance and knowledge of the truth; and he supplemented his prayers by works of mercy and almsgiving. Now, these good works of prayer and almsgiving were indeed supernatural good works, but still could not directly merit for Cornelius everlasting happiness, for only those good works which are performed in a state of sanctifying grace have meritorious value for heaven. Because Cornelius corresponded with divine grace, he received the further gift of faith, and by Baptism received sanctifying grace.

The following virtues are to be found in Cornelius:

1. He was religious, for he prayed continually, and honoured God, and according to his lights strove after religious truth.
2. He was conscientious, for, as far as his conscience taught him, he observed God’s commandments, obeyed the will of God, and kept himself from sin.
3. He was charitable and compassionate, working for the good of his neighbour. He practised not only the corporal but also the spiritual works of mercy, by inviting his friends to hear the words of Peter, and thus leading them to the true faith.
4. He was obedient to God’s command to send for Peter, and he thereby obtained salvation.
5. He was humble. If he had said to himself: “What can an uneducated fisherman like Peter do for me, a cultivated Roman?” he would not have obtained the gift of faith in Jesus Christ.
6. He believed the word of God, as it was announced to him by Peter, and therefore he received the gift of faith from the Holy Ghost, and the grace of Baptism.

Indifferentism in matters of faith. The sentence in Peter’s discourse: “In every nation he that feareth God and worketh justice is acceptable to Him”, has been interpreted by people either indifferent about, or weak in faith, to mean: “It is all the same what people believe, or what religious creed they profess, if only they live good lives.” Now is this principle, that religion and faith are matters of indifference, correct? No! it is utterly false and un-Christian, and that for these reasons: 1. Peter did not say: “Faith does not signify”; for he was, on the contrary, most anxious to convert Cornelius to the true faith; but his words meant rather that nationality does not signify—it does not matter what nation a man belongs to, for all nations are called to believe in Jesus Christ, and all persons, to whatever nation they may belong, are acceptable to Him, if, as Cornelius did, they keep the commandments and strive after a knowledge of the truth. Such men, being acceptable to God, are called by Him to believe the true faith, and thereby obtain salvation. 2. Peter, at the end of his discourse, expressly teaches that no one can obtain forgiveness of sins but through faith in Jesus (compare with this his words in chapter LXXXV: “There is no other Name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved”; Acts 4:12). 3. If no account was to be made of holding the true faith, St. Peter need not have preached to Cornelius, and need not have baptized him. 4. If it be a matter of indifference what faith a man holds, then the whole revelation of God would have been unnecessary, and it would have been quite superfluous for our Lord Jesus Christ to have come into the world, to have taught the true faith, and founded His Church. 5. The principle that it does not signify what a man believes is in direct opposition to the teaching of the Gospels, in which we find our Blessed Lord so often demanding faith in Himself and His doctrine (see, for example, chapter XV). There is only one true God, one Saviour, and one true faith, which Jesus Christ taught and bequeathed to the Church that He founded. Any indifference in matters of faith, or any admiration of it in others must come from a want of firm religious convictions, and is a grievous sin against faith.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 08:55:00 PM
Pax-

Let's say there is a 7 yr-old Russian Orthodox boy.

He has attained the age of reason.

He has never heard the claims of the Catholic Church regarding EENS, but he does believe that he must avoid and confess sins, receive Holy Communion, attend Mass, etc.

In short, he desires to do whatever God would require of him (even though he does not know what all of those things are).

There being no obex gratiae (i.e., obstacle) to block the transfer of sanctifying grace through the valid sacraments he receives, he is most certainly in that state (ie., justified).

Suddenly he dies.

Do you deny that such a one is joined to the Catholic Church (while not being a member of it), through said grace, even though he never explicitly desired it?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 09:00:14 PM
No, he’s not “joined” to the Church since he’s not a member. You can’t be a “half” member.  Would he go to heaven or Limbo? It’s debatable.  You can believe whatever you want until the Church clarifies it.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:04:58 PM
No, he’s not “joined” to the Church since he’s not a member. You can’t be a “half” member.  Would he go to heaven or Limbo? It’s debatable.  You can believe whatever you want until the Church clarifies it.  

Pax-

That bizarre answer necessarily implies the damnation of the justified.

Can you cite a single approved pope, council, saint, or theologian to back your made-up theology?

The answer is "no."

I'm done with you; you are beyond help.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:07:19 PM
PS:

My truck (the Church) is the only one which can make it to Canada (Heaven).  

Outside my truck (Church), none reach Canada (Heaven).  

As I depart, someone desired to latch a rope (sanctifying grace) around my trailer hitch, and they are pulled by the truck (Church) to Canada (Heaven) with us, because of the truck (Church) which was latched onto by the rope (grace).  

They are not passengers (members) of the truck (Church), but are pulled (joined to it) by the rope (grace) to Canada (Heaven) nevertheless.

Get it?

Now I am done.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 09:09:10 PM
Let’s move on.  A Justified person goes to heaven.  Ok?  It’s such a minor point that it doesn’t matter. 

What matters is - who qualifies to be justified?  You argue that all manner of non-Catholics do, which is at odds with Trent.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 09:38:35 PM
As Last Tradhican points out, it is a waste of time to debate the eternal place of a justified but unbaptized person (ie a formal catechumen).  My opinion is, they would go to limbo.  Is it possible they would go to heaven?  Some theologians think so.  It is open for debate.  Whatever you think, it’s not heresy because the Church has not ruled on this precise question.

The Council of Trent clearly teaches that there is no "justified but unbaptized person". It teaches that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of Justification. Hence there is no Justification without the sacrament of baptism. Furthermore, it teaches that without Justification the candidate is not "an heir according to hope of life everlasting" and neither are "the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ communicated" to him.

The teachings of the Council of Trent on Justification are part of the Profession of Faith of the Vatican Council. To state that "the Church has not ruled on this precise question" is nothing but an obvious and plain refusal to take note of the infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Maria Regina on August 21, 2018, 09:39:18 PM
PS:

My truck (the Church) is the only one which can make it to Canada (Heaven).  

Outside my truck (Church), none reach Canada (Heaven).  

As I depart, someone desired to latch a rope (sanctifying grace) around my trailer hitch, and they are pulled by the truck (Church) to Canada (Heaven) with us, because of the truck (Church) which was latched onto by the rope (grace).  

They are not passengers (members) of the truck (Church), but are pulled (joined to it) by the rope (grace) to Canada (Heaven) nevertheless.

Get it?

Now I am done.
In the real world, if a person hijacks a ride on a truck or a plane, he is considered to be a criminal. He is using up the gas on the vehicle and not paying anything. He is a free-loader who could be causing the vehicle to lose balance or to run out of fuel for his unplanned extra weight. He could end up dead if the rope breaks or if he ends up freezing outside.

Unfortunately, in the real world, we are also taught not to judge, but to applaud criminals for being so clever, for using any means to achieve their ends.

These WHAT-IF scenarios are appeals to emotion -- to feel sorry for such criminals. The stories on Robin Hood come to mind.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:43:19 PM
The Council of Trent clearly teaches that there is no "justified but unbaptized person". It teaches that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of Justification. Hence there is no Justification without the sacrament of baptism. Furthermore, it teaches that without Justification the candidate is not "an heir according to hope of life everlasting" and neither are "the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ communicated" to him.

The teachings of the Council of Trent on Justification are part of the Profession of Faith of the Vatican Council. To state that "the Church has not ruled on this precise question" is nothing but an obvious and plain refusal to take note of the infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.

There are three baptisms: Water, blood, and desire.

It is this latter which will satisfy your criteria.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:45:18 PM
In the real world, if a person hijacks a ride on a truck or a plane, he is considered to be a criminal. He is using up the gas on the vehicle and not paying anything. He is a free-loader who could be causing the vehicle to lose balance or to run out of fuel for his unplanned extra weight. He could end up dead if the rope breaks or if he ends up freezing outside.

Unfortunately, in the real world, we are also taught not to judge, but to applaud criminals for being so clever, for using any means to achieve their ends.

These WHAT-IF scenarios are appeals to emotion -- to feel sorry for such criminals.

In other words, God considers those who but know Him imperfectly, through no fault of their own, but who desire to do all they understand to be their obligations, and would certainly have offered to pay for gas had they had the chance to do so, "hijackers?"

By this line of thinking, you degrade God to the level of a Pharisee, who rewards and punishes on technicalities (hope you haven't made any mistakes in confession, and that the priest who you think baptized did so with proper form, matter, intent, and Orders).

Implicitly, you are forwarding some kind of theory of predestination ("If God wanted them in Heaven, he would have sent a priest to baptize them").
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:47:06 PM
Let’s move on.  A Justified person goes to heaven.  Ok?  It’s such a minor point that it doesn’t matter.

What matters is - who qualifies to be justified?  You argue that all manner of non-Catholics do, which is at odds with Trent.  

OK, if you are conceding that point, I will play along a bit further, and delve into your question:

Who are the justified?

Answer: All those in the state of sanctifying grace.

Proof: There are none in hell in the state of sanctifying grace.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 09:50:25 PM
There are three baptisms: Water, blood, and desire.

It is this latter which will satisfy your criteria.

St. Thomas Aquinas speculated about three baptisms. The Council of Trent taught one baptism.

Catholics believe what the authorized infallible Magisterium proposes, and do not use fallible speculations of theologians to attack the decreed and defined Faith of the Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 09:52:27 PM
St. Thomas Aquinas speculated about three baptisms. The Council of Trent taught one baptism.

Catholics believe what the authorized infallible Magisterium proposes, and do not use fallible speculations of theologians to attack the decreed and defined Faith of the Church.

...or desire for it.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 09:52:45 PM
Pax-

That bizarre answer necessarily implies the damnation of the justified.

Can you cite a single approved pope, council, saint, or theologian to back your made-up theology?

That's a two edge sword. The same demand can be made of your hypothetical. Your example of a Eastern schismatic child is specious. "Suddenly he dies". If a person follows the commandments, God will preserve him, and send him a preacher.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm#11

Quote
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/salvation.htm

Quote
No doubt, it is (absolutely speaking) POSSIBLE for God to save men by any means He pleases; and He could have saved all mankind through the merits of any one thing that Jesus Christ did or suffered, without requiring such a severe sacrifice from Him as His death upon the Cross. But whatever God CAN do in this respect, is nothing to our purpose; the great question for us is to know what He HAS done. Now, we have seen above, from the whole tenor of revelation, that God has appointed true Faith in Jesus Christ, and the being a member of His Church, as conditions of salvation. That He has appointed them as essential conditions, so that none WILL or CAN be saved without them. That the Word of God points out no other possible way by which man can be saved; nay, that whatever extraordinary ways He may sometimes take to bring people to His Church, yet according to the manner He has spoken of many of the above texts on this subject, it is impossible He should, in fact, have reserved any EXTRAORDINARY means of salvation for those who live and die not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by True Faith, otherwise He would contradict Himself, and give the lie to His own Words, which is absolutely impossible. For instance, these two express declaration of scripture: "The Lord daily added to the Church such as should be saved," and "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," would not be true, if there was any possibility for those to be saved who were not added to the Church, or did not believe. The same is equally true in most of the other texts, as will appear on considering them.

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Maria Regina on August 21, 2018, 09:52:57 PM
In other words, God considers those who but know Him imperfectly, through no fault of their own, but who desire to do all they understand to be their obligations, and would certainly have offered to pay for gas had they had the chance to do so, "hijackers?"
Why did they not ask to come inside where the warmth of the Holy Spirit awaits them?

Christ commands everyone to come inside to the Sacred Banquet where they will enjoy His communion, all He asks is that they put on the white robe of baptism and be of one heart, one mind, one Spirit. Those who refuse to put on the white robe are cast into the eternal fires.

We do have a choice.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 09:56:24 PM
...or desire for it.

Not without it and not without desire for it. You should not fall for bad translations.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 09:56:54 PM
In my LONG experience with defenders of baptism of desire, I have come to the conclusion that I can safely say that 99% of those that defend BOD are really defending their belief that people in any and all religions can be saved without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

This is what be stressed time and time again. It's not BoD, per se.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16summo.htm

Quote
Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:00:22 PM
That's a two edge sword. The same demand can be made of your hypothetical. Your example of a Eastern schismatic child is specious. "Suddenly he dies". If a person follows the commandments, God will preserve him, and send him a preacher.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm#11

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/salvation.htm

Nonsense:

1) The entire praxis of the Church, particularly in Her missionary apostolates testifies to the contrary (e.g., in the oft-cited example of Archbishop Lefebvre to the catechumen who feared going to hell if he dies before the Archbishop returned).  Lefebvre did not make up his response out of thin air.  It is what the Church has been practicing in the field for 2000 years.

2) You would also negate the dogmatic teaching of Trent (in voto) and the very reality of baptism of desire, which practically every saint and council to discuss the matter has reaffirmed (or was Trent in error, and the unanimity of theologians in error, and all the popes who taught baptism of desire in their magisterial capacity in error, etc?).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:01:23 PM
Not without it and not without desire for it. You should not fall for bad translations.

You are attacking the council you think you are defending.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:03:08 PM
This is what be stressed time and time again. It's not BoD, per se.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16summo.htm

Doctrinal tunnel vision.

If you plug your ears hard enough, it will be easier for you to "stress time and time again."

Kind of like Deb from Napoleon Dynamite: 

Deb: "Would you like to look like this?"

Napoleon: "This is a picture of a girl."

Deb (Undeterred, and determined to talk through her sales script): "'cause for a limited time, glamor shots by Deb are only $9.99."
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 10:04:21 PM
Nonsense:

1) The entire praxis of the Church, particularly in Her missionary apostolates testifies to the contrary (e.g., in the oft-cited example of Archbishop Lefebvre to the catechumen who feared going to hell if he dies before the Archbishop returned).  Lefebvre did not make up his response out of thin air.  It is what the Church has been practicing in the field for 2000 years.

2) You would also negate the dogmatic teaching of Trent (in voto) and the very reality of baptism of desire, which practically every saint and council to discuss the matter has reaffirmed (or was Trent in error, and the unanimity of theologians in error, and all the popes who taught baptism of desire in their magisterial capacity in error, etc?).

You're arguing a Eastern schismatic child would receive BoD? He's already baptized. The argument I'm making right now is not against BoD, in and of itself. The argument is against the position that salvation can be had without the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:08:43 PM
You're arguing a Eastern schismatic child would receive BoD? He's already baptized. The argument I'm making right now is not against BoD, in and of itself. The argument is against the position that salvation can be had without the Catholic faith.

He's not a member of the Church, but being justified, he would be joined to it by grace through implicit baptism of desire.

That he has had water baptism is irrelevant (or, are you saying the Orthodox are members of the Church in virtue of their water baptism?).

And, where did you ever get the idea that implicit baptism of desire is salvation without the Catholic Church??
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 10:12:12 PM
He's not a member of the Church, but he would be justified by implicit baptism of desire (i.e., to become a member of the Church).

Baptized as an infant he would be a member of the Catholic Church. Upon reaching the age of reason, if he professes his parents' heresies he loses his status as a member. What is this applying of the grace of BoD to one already baptized?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:17:30 PM
Baptized as an infant he would be a member of the Catholic Church. Upon reaching the age of reason, if he professes his parents' heresies he loses his status as a member. What is this applying of the grace of BoD to one already baptized?

And of course, he WOULD be professing his parents' heresies, and therefore lose his status as a member of the Church.

Nevertheless, he would still be joined to it by the grace of which you speak, in the example I laid out.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 10:17:56 PM
You are attacking the council you think you are defending.

LOL.

You use the single word "desire" used by the Council of Trent to indicate that baptism has not only to happen but also to be desired, to construct a doctrine of two additional baptisms which are not even mentioned by the Council of Trent and additionally are excluded and anathematized by the Council of Trent in multiple ways.

The Council of Trent forbids strictly to teach anything other than the Council of Trent teaches on justification. And: The Council of Trent does not even mention "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood".

Nobody forces you to study and understand, what the true Faith, taught by the authorized Magisterium of the Church is, and nobody forces you to adhere to it. If you prefer to stick to the speculation of St. Thomas Aquinas about three baptisms, well, that's your choice. But anyone with basic reading skills laughs at you, when you suggest that the Council of Trent teaches three baptisms.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:20:15 PM
LOL.

You use the single word "desire" used by the Council of Trent to indicate that baptism has not only to happen but also to be desired, to construct a doctrine of two additional baptisms which are not even mentioned by the Council of Trent and additionaly are excluded and anathematized by the Council of Trent in multiple ways.

The Council of Trent forbids strictly to teach anything other than the Council of Trent teaches on justification. And: The Council of Trent does not even mention "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood".

Nobody forces you to study and understand, what the true Faith, taught by the authorized Magisterium of the Church is, and nobody forces you to adhere to it. If you prefer to stick to the speculation of St. Thomas Aquinas about three baptisms, well, that's your choice. But anyone with basic reading skills laughs at you, when you suggest that the Council of Trent teaches three baptisms.

Who has a better grasp on what Trent taught:

You, or hundreds of catechisms, popes, saints, doctors of the Church, and the entire missionary history (both before and after Trent) of the Church (all of which sides with me)?

It is theoretically possible that they are all wrong, and you are right, but somehow I doubt it.

Actually, come to think about it, it is not even theoretically possible that you are right and they are wrong.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Maria Regina on August 21, 2018, 10:22:35 PM
In other words, God considers those who but know Him imperfectly, through no fault of their own, but who desire to do all they understand to be their obligations, and would certainly have offered to pay for gas had they had the chance to do so, "hijackers?"

By this line of thinking, you degrade God to the level of a Pharisee, who rewards and punishes on technicalities (hope you haven't made any mistakes in confession, and that the priest who you think baptized did so with proper form, matter, intent, and Orders).

Implicitly, you are forwarding some kind of theory of predestination ("If God wanted them in Heaven, he would have sent a priest to baptize them").
Not quite. Perhaps by our own selfishness and lack of charity, those souls could have been saved.

A priest gave a sermon many years ago.

I think it was a parable from one of the lives of the saints.

Quote
There was a woman who had died, and thinking that she had lived a good life, she was rather surprised to find herself in hell. She pleaded with her guardian angel to look into this matter, as there must have been a serious mistake, and get her out of hell. He asked her if she had done anything good in life. She thought and thought. Finally, she said that she had once given a huge fresh onion from her garden to a beggar so that he could make some onion soup.

Guardian Angel - Is this that onion?

Woman - Why, yes. That is the one.

Guardian Angel - Here, hold onto the onion and I will pull you out of Hell.

The woman grabs onto the onion, but others see that she is trying to escape. These would be hijackers quickly grab her legs weighing her down, pulling her down, down, down, towards the fiery pit. Drenched with sweat, she pleads with her Guardian Angel to take her up faster.  She appears to be gaining speed, only to be slowed down as others grab onto the few hijackers forming a huge pyramid underneath her.  She pleads with them to take their hands off her to no avail.

Then in utter desperation, she exclaims loudly:

Let go, it's MY onion.

A loud splash is heard as the woman falls back into the fiery pit with all those attached to her.

In her heart, she now knows why. Her own selfishness has condemned her to a life of hell.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2018, 10:26:12 PM
Not quite. Perhaps by our own selfishness and lack of charity, those souls could have been saved.

A priest gave a sermon many years ago.

I think it was a parable from one of the lives of the saints.

Somehow, I doubt the moral of that story was intended to be a rejection of baptism of desire, or an argument in favor of (uncatholic) predestination
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Müller, Michael. The Catholic Dogma- Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur (Kindle Locations 2501-2559). The Perfect Library. Kindle Edition.


Quote
When St. Thomas says, "Ipsum, (i.e. Deum) credere, to believe God," etc., he speaks of Catholics who have the true faith, as is evident from all that precedes, especially from q. i., art. 10., in which he says that it belongs especially to the Pope, whom Christ made the visible head of his Church, to see to the arrangement and publication of the symbol of faith. It is, therefore, to say the least, unwise for the Rev. A. Young to apply to himself and other material heretics what St. Thomas says only of the faith of Catholics; for he says expressly that those who have not the true faith cannot make an act of faith as it ought to be made, that is, in the manner determined by the true faith. And what St. Thomas means by "Ipsum credere, to believe God," he tells us in q. v., art. 3, in which he says: "The formal object of faith is the First Truth (that is, God himself) such as he is known from Holy Scripture and from the doctrine of the Church, which (doctrine) proceeds from the First Truth. Hence any one who does not adhere to the infallible and divine rule of faith-to the doctrine of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth as made known in the Holy Scripture, cannot have the habit of faith; but if he holds certain truths of faith, he holds them not by faith, but by some other reasons. But it is clear that he who adheres to the doctrine of the Church as to the infallible rule of belief, assents to all that the Church teaches; he, however, who chooses to believe some of those truths which the Church teaches, and to reject others, instead of adhering to the doctrine of the Church as the infallible rule of faith, adheres only to his own private will or judgment. "

Those articles of faith in which a heretic does not err, he does not believe in the same manner as a Catholic believes them; for a Catholic believes them by unhesitatingly adhering to the First Truth (as made known in Holy Scripture and in the doctrine of the Church), to do which he needs the help of the habit of faith; but a heretic does not hold certain articles of faith by this infallible rule, but only by his own choice and private judgment. He whose faith is not based upon the infallible and divine rule of faith, has no true faith at all; for he who does not believe God in the way determined by the true faith, does not believe God.

"We cannot believe absolutely a divine truth proposed for our belief unless we know that such a truth is proposed for our belief by an infallible and divine authority; it is only then that both the intellect and the will are infallibly directed to believe, and to adhere to the object of faith-God and his revealed truths-as the principle end of man, on account of which he assents to divine truths. As this infallible and divine authority is found only in the Catholic Church, it is evident that true acts of faith can be made only by him who adheres to this authority. (Sum. 22 q. ii. art. ii., ad 3; 3, 22, q. iv., art. 5.) As the Rev. A. Young, when a Protestant, did not, and could not, have this infallible and divine rule of faith, he did not, and could not, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas make acts of divine faith. If it is true, then, what he asserts, namely, "that his faith underwent no change when he became a Catholic," it must be true also that he is a peculiar kind of a Catholic.

That the Rev. A. Young, as long as he was a Protestant, could not make acts of divine faith in the manner determined by faith, is also evident from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus.

God begins the work of man's salvation, says St. Alphonsus, by working upon the soul inwardly and outwardly. God works upon the soul inwardly by inspiring it first with the thought of salvation. From the thought of salvation arises the desire of salvation. The desire of salvation prepares the soul to comply with the conditions of salvation. Now, the first condition of salvation is true, divine faith. The beginning of true faith, then, is the desire thereof, arising from the thought of salvation. The pious desire of faith, however, is not as yet formal faith; it is but the good thought of wishing to believe, which, as St. Augustine says, precedes belief.

The desire of salvation, inspired by Almighty God, must also be accomplished by him. So he also works upon the soul outwardly. The most usual means which he employs to work upon the soul outwardly and lead it to the possession of the true faith is to give it an opportunity to learn the truths of salvation from the Catholic Church. "Faith is from hearing," says St. Paul. He then enlightens the intellect of man to see the truths of salvation; he inclines the will to believe those truths as coming to him from God, through the divine authority of his Church, and to trust in God's faithfulness to his promises. He believes especially that God pardons the repentant sinner and receives him into his friendship on account of the merits of Jesus Christ. But in hearing the sacred Law promulgated he perceives that he is a sinner, and therefore fears the justice of God, which is provoked by his iniquities. Having been cast down by this salutary shock, a feeling of confidence in the infinite mercy of God presents itself and raises him up. He hopes that, in consideration of Christ's merits, God will pardon him. Animated by this hope, he begins to love. This love leads him to detest his sins, to repent of them, to repair them, as far as possible; it makes him resolve to keep the commandments, and to become reconciled with God by the means given by Him, that is, Baptism for unbaptized persons, and the sacrament of Penance for those Christians who have lost the grace of God.

Faith, therefore, to be truly divine and saving, must be based upon the divine Authority of God as invested in the Roman Catholic Church.

"Without a visible, infallible Head of the Church," says St. Alphonsus, "it would be impossible to have an infallible rule of faith, whereby to know with certainty what to believe and what to do. Hence he who is separated from the Church and is not obedient to her has no infallible rule of faith; he has no longer any criterion whereby he can know what he has to believe and to do. Without this divine authority of the Church, neither the principles of divine revelation nor even those of human reason have any support, because the utterances of the one as well as those of the other will then be interpreted by every one as he pleases; and then every one can deny all the truths of faith-The Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, heaven and hell, and whatever else he chooses to deny. I, therefore, repeat: If the divine authority of the Church and the obedience due to her are renounced, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated in others. This undeniable argument made a Calvinist preacher renounce his errors." (Appendix to his work, Council of Trent.)

Hence St. Thomas, speaking of faith, says: "The virtue of faith consists principally in submitting our intellect and will, with the help of God's grace, to the divine authority of the true Church charged by Jesus Christ to teach us what we must believe. He who does not follow this rule of faith, has no true faith at all." The reason of this is given above by St. Alphonsus; for how could we, without the Church, know that God has revealed anything at all? How could we know what he has revealed? How could we know the meaning of his revelations? How could we know the written Word of God? How could we know the meaning of Holy Scripture? For Holy Scripture does not consist in the words, but in the sense of the words. How could we know the extent of the divine revelations? For the extent of the divine revelations is greater than that of Holy Scripture. So, without the divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church, we can hold no revealed truth on divine authority; if we hold any Catholic truths, we believe them only on human authority; and such belief is no divine faith. Acts of divine faith, therefore, consist in believing firmly what God tells us through the divine authority of his Church. All heretics, formal as well as material, are separated from this divine authority, and therefore even the acts of faith made by material heretics are by no means acts of divine faith, in spite of their inculpable ignorance of the divine authority of the Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 10:51:02 PM
Who has a better grasp on what Trent taught:

You, or hundreds of catechisms, popes, saints, doctors of the Church, and the entire missionary history (both before and after Trent) of the Church (all of which sides with me)?

It is theoretically possible that they are all wrong, and you are right, but somehow I doubt it.

Actually, come to think about it, it is not even theoretically possible that you are right and they are wrong.

Yes, there are quite a few catechisms contradicting the Council of Trent. It starts even with the "Catechism of Trent" which has the peculiar idea of a catechumen accidentally dying (as if there were accidents in the creation of God). Popes? Well, there is a Catechism called "Catechism of St. Pius X". It explains that noone is saved without baptism. Then it asks: really noone? Answering: yes noone. Then again, same procedure. After the third or so try, finally, it admits some strange possibility of belonging to the soul of the Church. That is a joke. I don't believe that St. Pius wrote that or approved it. Doctors? There is St. Alphonsus referencing the decree on Confession to talk about a baptism without true baptism. I don't believe he himself wrote that part of his books. The entire missionary history? How could the "entire missionary history" prove that any specific person did not go to hell?

Obviously, you reject to study and understand the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent for yourself, you prefer to rather stick to other pseudo-"authorities" whom you trust without reviewing the questions. Well, do what you think you have to do. I don't blame you.

But I do advise everybody interested in the true faith of the Church as decreed and defined by the ecuмenical Council of Trent and adopted into the Profession of the Faith by the Vatican Council to read and study the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent. It is a good exercise, to decompose the nowadays uncommon long sentences, to better understand what is being said. It's worth it. It is truth fallen from heaven. It is the Faith without which noone pleases God.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: trad123 on August 21, 2018, 11:55:09 PM
De Indis De Jure Belli by Francisco de Vitoria, Part 2

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Indis_De_Jure_Belli/Part_2


Quote
9. I say accordingly on this point that negligence with regard to the subject-matter is requisite for ignorance, even though it be vincible, to be imputed as, and to be, a sin, as, for example, that the man refused to hear or did not believe what he did hear; and on the other hand I say that for invincible ignorance it is enough that the man bestowed human diligence in trying to learn, even if in other respects he is in mortal sin. And so on this point our judgment is the same concerning one in sin and one in grace, both now and immediately after Christ's coming or after His passion. Adrian could not deny that after our Lord's passion the Jєωs in India or in Spain were invincibly ignorant of His passion, however much they were in mortal sin; nay, he himself has expressly conceded this in his first quaestio, fourth point, on the topic de observantia legalium. And it is certain that the Jєωs who were away from Judaea, whether they were in sin or not, had invincible ignorance about baptism and about the faith of Christ.

Just as there could at that time be a case of invincible ignorance on this matter, so there may also be nowadays among those who have not had baptism declared to them. But the mistake which the doctors in question make is in thinking that when we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith it follows at once that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith, which, however, does not follow. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief, as St. Thomas (Secunda Secundae, as above) says, namely, that if they do what in them lies, accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God's providence and He will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ, but it does not therefore follow that if their life be bad, ignorance or unbelief in baptism and the Christian faith may be imputed to them as a sin.

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 22, 2018, 06:41:59 AM
I have never heard of an "unbaptized but justified person" other than by folks who say that this idea is an idea of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now, a single Jesuit priest is not exactly a source of the Catholic Faith.

How can an unbaptized person be justified, while the Council of Trent teaches that the instrumental cause of Justification is the sacrament of baptism?
Fr. Feeney referenced the saints of the Old Testament, who were justified but not baptized - but being justified alone could not get into heaven when they died.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 22, 2018, 07:55:12 AM
1) The entire praxis of the Church, particularly in Her missionary apostolates testifies to the contrary (e.g., in the oft-cited example of Archbishop Lefebvre to the catechumen who feared going to hell if he dies before the Archbishop returned).  Lefebvre did not make up his response out of thin air.  It is what the Church has been practicing in the field for 2000 years.

All this demonstrates is the pollution of +Lefebvre's thinking with the neo-Pelagianism that was running rampant in the pre-Vatican II Church.  2000 years my foot.  You lie like 98% of all BoDers do.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 22, 2018, 07:56:02 AM
Doctrinal tunnel vision.

If you plug your ears hard enough, it will be easier for you to "stress time and time again."

Kind of like Deb from Napoleon Dynamite:

Deb: "Would you like to look like this?"

Napoleon: "This is a picture of a girl."

Deb (Undeterred, and determined to talk through her sales script): "'cause for a limited time, glamor shots by Deb are only $9.99."

I picture you as being a spitting image of Napoleon.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 22, 2018, 08:05:30 AM


An unbaptized but justified person [...]

I have never heard of an "unbaptized but justified person" other than by folks who say that this idea is an idea of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now, a single Jesuit priest is not exactly a source of the Catholic Faith.

How can an unbaptized person be justified, while the Council of Trent teaches that the instrumental cause of Justification is the sacrament of baptism?

Fr. Feeney referenced the saints of the Old Testament, who were justified but not baptized - but being justified alone could not get into heaven when they died.

Thank you, Stubborn. Then there is no conflict with the Council of Trent which is not treating justification before the promulgation of the Gospel

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 22, 2018, 08:13:05 AM
All this demonstrates is the pollution of +Lefebvre's thinking with the neo-Pelagianism that was running rampant in the pre-Vatican II Church.  2000 years my foot.  You lie like 98% of all BoDers do.
Same old dung from these liars (I am not talking about Abp. L, it is not he who is spewing out these lies here on this thread), basically ignore all the dogmas and make up your own, now it's "anyone can be justified and saved" (without the sacrament of baptism, without the sacrament of confession, without a real desire to be baptized, without a desire to be a Catholic, without belief in the Incarnation, without belief in the Holy Trinity, indeed, even as the worst enemy of Christ and His Church).

Well, at least the OP is honest and open about what he believes, that's the first time I've seen a BODer come out and defend his real belief that anyone can be saved outside of the Church.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 11:09:40 AM
Quote
He's not a member of the Church (russian orthodox boy), but being justified, he would be joined to it by grace through implicit baptism of desire.

That he has had water baptism is irrelevant (or, are you saying the Orthodox are members of the Church in virtue of their water baptism?).
I don't wan't to get too deep into your example, but it was quite contradictory.  If a person is baptized, they are members of the Church.  If a russian orthodox boy dies in the state of grace, they go to heaven.  Duh.

But your example presumed that the boy could have BOD post-baptism.  You only have BOD once, just like you can only get baptized once.  Unless you think one can receive BOD multiple times?? ??

The question of if a justified but unbaptized person goes to heaven is up to God.  If that's what the Church says, I'll believe it, but I think it's debatable.  You don't.  Let's move on.

--
The real question is:  Who is able to receive BOD?  Trent was VERY SPECIFIC about who qualifies to be justified by BOD.  Your (and +ABL's) heretical theory that a muslim "who wants to do what God wills" can receive BOD is an error.  Trent taught that said muslim must believe in 1) original sin, the Incarnation, Trinity, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, 2) learn and accept the faith/Church, and 3) make a decision to follow the 10 commandments and "begin a new life" in the Church (i.e. through baptism - whether expressed openly (explicitly) or implied by actions (implicitly).

No ignorant person COULD EVER qualify the above requirements.  Hence, they cannot receive BOD.
No non-catholic, still practiciing their false religion, COULD EVER qualify for the above requirements.  Hence, they cannot receive BOD.

You're main problem is a lack of understanding of what "implicit" means.  You falsely define implicit desire as meaning "subconscious" or "undefined/unspecific".  As if a muslim can become a member of the Church, only knowing the catholic dogma on Adam/Eve.  As if a muslim can join the Church through "good will" and a "desire for God" without knowing what baptism is or means (both errors condemned by Trent).

Implicit simply means 'implied but not expressed'; or "essentially connected with".  So a person who is attending catechism classes - they are IMPLICITLY showing they want to become catholic.  A catechumen who goes to sunday mass is "essentially or very closely connected with" the Faith.  One who is ignorant of, or practicing a false religion, by definition, cannot love the Faith, and is not essentially or closely connected with the Faith.  Therefore, BOD is not possible for them, per Trent.

The modernists have subtly replaced "implicit desire for baptism/Faith" with "implicit desire for God" and thus have turned BOD into heresy.  They have corrupted EENS, in an effort to create their hoped-for freemasonic, satanic, one-world religion, which necessarily is opposed by the Catholic Faith.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 11:15:52 AM
I don't wan't to get too deep into your example, but it was quite contradictory.  If a person is baptized, they are members of the Church.  If a russian orthodox boy dies in the state of grace, they go to heaven.  Duh.
But your example presumed that the boy could have BOD post-baptism.  You only have BOD once, just like you can only get baptized once.  Unless you think one can receive BOD multiple times?? ??
The question of if a justified but unbaptized person goes to heaven is up to God.  If that's what the Church says, I'll believe it, but I think it's debatable.  You don't.  Let's move on.
--
The real question is:  Who is able to receive BOD?  Trent was VERY SPECIFIC about who qualifies to be justified by BOD.  Your (and +ABL's) heretical theory that a muslim "who wants to do what God wills" can receive BOD is an error.  Trent taught that said muslim must believe in 1) original sin, the Incarnation, Trinity, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, 2) learn and accept the faith/Church, and 3) make a decision to follow the 10 commandments and "being a new life" in the Church (i.e. through baptism - whether expressed openly (explicitly) or implied by actions (implicitly).
No ignorant person COULD EVER qualify the above requirements.  Hence, they cannot receive BOD.
No non-catholic, still practiciing their false religion, COULD EVER qualify for the above requirements.  Hence, they cannot receive BOD.
You're main problem is a lack of understanding of what "implicit" means.  You falsely define implicit desire as meaning "subconscious" or "undefined/unspecific".  As if a muslim can become a member of the Church, only knowing the catholic dogma on Adam/Eve.  As if a muslim can join the Church through "good will" and a "desire for God" without knowing what baptism is or means (both errors condemned by Trent).
Implicit simply means 'implied but not expressed'; or "essentially connected with".  So a person who is attending catechism classes - they are IMPLICITLY showing they want to become catholic.  A catechumen who goes to sunday mass is "essentially or very closely connected with" the Faith.  One who is ignorant of, or practicing a false religion, by definition, cannot love the Faith, and is not essentially or closely connected with it.  Therefore, BOD is not possible for them, per Trent.

Sorry, but you need to get deeper into the example you don’t want to get deeper into:

The boy had attained the age of reason, and at that point he was no longer a member of the Church through grace.

If you will say that the boy does not immediately lose membership upon attaining the age of reason, but only upon sufficient recognition and understanding of Catholicism, then you have just acknowledged that many (of all ages) who are members of false churches are actually joined to (and therefore saved by) the Catholic Church.
And that is precisely the argument I am making (and by extension, the same argument ABL was making).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 11:25:36 AM
The example of the russian orthodox is unnecessarily complex for our debate.  One, they believe many of the doctrines that Catholicism does.  Are their masses/sacraments valid?  I don't know.  For your example, I was presuming yes.  My assumption was that a 7yr old baptized member of the Church, who goes to mass and receives the Holy Eucharist dies in the state of grace.  Also assuming he had not accepted error and hatred for true doctrine - because what 7yr old has the mental capacity to understand complex heresy?  Few.

A more clear cut example would be a 14yr old Baptist, who was validly baptized but rejected catholicism and who was old enough to know a little bit about theology and the bible.  In this case, such a one would NOT make heaven, for they are NOT members of the church.  Their rejection of the Faith would be a sin of heresy.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 22, 2018, 11:55:20 AM
When people apply "BoD" to even baptized individuals, that tells you all you need to know.  They do not believe in the traditional scholastic BoD but are using the term in lieu of the Pelagian "sincerity saves" heresy.  Instead of believing in one "church of the faithful" outside which no one can be saved, as of the Church dogmatic definitions, they substitute instead the one "church of the sincere".
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 22, 2018, 11:59:08 AM
If you will say that the boy does not immediately lose membership upon attaining the age of reason, but only upon sufficient recognition and understanding of Catholicism, then you have just acknowledged that many (of all ages) who are members of false churches are actually joined to (and therefore saved by) the Catholic Church.

And that is precisely the argument I am making (and by extension, the same argument ABL was making).

And Vatican II did also!

Well, if this is so, then there is absolutely no heresy to be found in Vatican II Council and therefore, all Traditionalists who are in not in communion with Rome are in danger of perishing.

So for these people, an Orthodox (Or even a nonbaptized Jєω, Moslem, or Hindu) can still be an invisible member of the Church; but a "Feeneyite" is for sure a heretic outside the Church...a non member...   :jester:
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 22, 2018, 12:03:41 PM
Well, then there is absolutely no heresy to be found in Vatican II Council and therefore, all Traditionalists who are in not in communion with Rome are in danger of perishing.

Indeed, Cantarella.  JohnSeanson just described the Vatican II definition of Church in a nutshell.  Since anyone who is saved must by definition be within the Church, all these non-Catholics are actually within the Church.  So we now have a Church that consists not only of Catholics proper, but also of all manner of heretics, schismatics, and infidels ... who while formally belonging to the Church have varying degrees of material separation from the fullness of truth that is held by Catholics in whom the Church subsists.  V2 in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 22, 2018, 12:13:29 PM
Indeed, Cantarella.  JohnSeanson just described the Vatican II definition of Church in a nutshell.  Since anyone who is saved must by definition be within the Church, all these non-Catholics are actually within the Church.  So we now have a Church that consists not only of Catholics proper, but also of all manner of heretics, schismatics, and infidels ... who while formally belonging to the Church have varying degrees of material separation from the fullness of truth that is held by Catholics in whom the Church subsists.  V2 in a nutshell.

It gets even sadder for these trads. They actually take it further than Vatican II ever did.

At least when Vatican II was applying varying degrees of communion to other sects in which the Church "subsists" and all that, it was referring to the other "CHRISTIAN" communities. (Meaning they are already waterly BAPTIZED and have Faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity, and some even have valid sacraments)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: 2Vermont on August 22, 2018, 12:19:32 PM
When people apply "BoD" to even baptized individuals, that tells you all you need to know.  They do not believe in the traditional scholastic BoD but are using the term in lieu of the Pelagian "sincerity saves" heresy.  Instead of believing in one "church of the faithful" outside which no one can be saved, as of the Church dogmatic definitions, they substitute instead the one "church of the sincere".
Can I just say that I had NEVER heard of applying BoD to baptized individuals before this thread.  It's a head-scratcher for sure.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 22, 2018, 12:23:02 PM
Have you ever even heard that there are THREE baptisms in Catholic theology?

That statement right there is a heresy.

Even if you believe that desire and blood can substitute the tangible water in martyrs and dying catechumens, you must confess that there is only ONE Baptism for the remission of sins.

"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins" Says the dogmatic Nicene Creed. This dogma that there is one baptism for the remission of sins comes from Our Lord Himself and the Apostles. It is affirmed by St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5:

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 01:18:40 PM
Indeed, Cantarella.  JohnSeanson just described the Vatican II definition of Church in a nutshell.  Since anyone who is saved must by definition be within the Church, all these non-Catholics are actually within the Church.  So we now have a Church that consists not only of Catholics proper, but also of all manner of heretics, schismatics, and infidels ... who while formally belonging to the Church have varying degrees of material separation from the fullness of truth that is held by Catholics in whom the Church subsists.  V2 in a nutshell.

Au contraire:

V2 speaks of false churches “subsisting” in the true Church.

That is heretical.

What implicit baptism of desire pertains to is INDIVIDUALS joined to the true Church (without being members of it) by sanctifying grace, and therefore saved.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 22, 2018, 01:34:26 PM
What implicit baptism of desire pertains to is INDIVIDUALS joined to the true Church (without being members of it) by sanctifying grace, and therefore saved.
I find it amazing that any Catholic could possibly believe that there even are ANY individuals who refused to become members of the true Church whilst they lived, but believe it a (dogmatic) teaching of the Church that these same individuals, via some good intention, joined it anyway moments from their dying breath - and on that account were saved.

What ever happened to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

The idea that man can save himself is a heresy - no?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 02:00:38 PM
Quote
What implicit baptism of desire pertains to is INDIVIDUALS joined to the true Church (without being members of it) by sanctifying grace, and therefore saved.
This could only apply to formal catechumens, as Trent describes clearly.  Basically, the only people who are "joined" to the church without being members are those whose membership is "pending" because they ACTED to reject their errors, learn about the Faith and desire it.

No one is joined to the Church who is still part of a non-catholic religion.  Certainly not one who is altogether ignorant of Her.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: 2Vermont on August 22, 2018, 02:07:59 PM
You keep repeating "explicit act of supernatural faith" but you've never explained what actually qualifies.
Was this question ever answered in this thread?  Perhaps it was and I missed it?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 02:12:29 PM
I find it amazing that any Catholic could possibly believe that there even are ANY individuals who refused to become members of the true Church whilst they lived, but believe it a (dogmatic) teaching of the Church that these same individuals, via some good intention, joined it anyway moments from their dying breath - and on that account were saved.

What ever happened to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

The idea that man can save himself is a heresy - no?

They didn’t “refuse to become” Catholics.

They never had the CHANCE to become Catholics.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 02:13:26 PM
Was this question ever answered in this thread?  Perhaps it was and I missed it?

See p.1, post 2 of this thread.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: forlorn on August 22, 2018, 02:17:48 PM
See p.1, post 2 of this thread.
No, all you did was state that a supernatural act in at least one aspect of the faith was required. You never explained what exactly that meant. You said this applies to the invincibly ignorant, so that begs the question, how on earth can one who has never heard of the Catholic Church perform a supernatural aspect in one aspect of the faith? The faith = the Catholic faith right? How can you perform a supernatural act in an aspect of the Catholic faith without being a Catholic?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 02:48:08 PM
No, all you did was state that a supernatural act in at least one aspect of the faith was required. You never explained what exactly that meant. You said this applies to the invincibly ignorant, so that begs the question, how on earth can one who has never heard of the Catholic Church perform a supernatural aspect in one aspect of the faith? The faith = the Catholic faith right? How can you perform a supernatural act in an aspect of the Catholic faith without being a Catholic?

The answers to the questions you are asking here are contained in the post I directed you to.

Perhaps you don’t like the answer, or perhaps you are determined to not so much as even reading them (CRIMESTOP?), or comprehending them, but if the strategy with my arguments will be the same as that used with Mithrandylan’s (ie., talking right past the argument and repeating the demand to furnish that which has already been furnished), it doesn’t leave much hope for productive conversation.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 22, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
They didn’t “refuse to become” Catholics.

They never had the CHANCE to become Catholics.
Wrong. Just as those are members of the Church are so of their own free will, those who are not members are not so of their own free will. 

"If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children." - Fr. Wathen

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 22, 2018, 02:57:01 PM

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)

Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

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)
 
 
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.


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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [/color](pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)[/size]


Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [/size]nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
 “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation
nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
 
 Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
 “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 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.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
 “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which
no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
 
 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true
Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which
no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which
none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
 
 Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 Chapter VII.
 
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
 This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439,
ex cathedra:  “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.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
 On Baptism
 
 Canon 2.
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, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Canon 5. If any one saith, that
baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
 way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
 Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
 have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
 
 
 (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 02:57:36 PM
Quote
They didn’t “refuse to become” Catholics...They never had the CHANCE to become Catholics.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Unless the Holy Ghost provides man with the disposition/inspiration to be justified, then he will not be.  Unless the Holy Ghost disposes man to accept the Church, he will not accept it.

Those whom God does not dispose/inspire to be baptized or to have knowledge of the Faith, are those whom God knew, from all eternity, would not accept His graces.  Usually the adage of "grace builds on nature" applies.  This is called the mystery of salvation.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: 2Vermont on August 22, 2018, 03:23:11 PM
The answers to the questions you are asking here are contained in the post I directed you to.


The only thing that that post states is that, in order for implicit BOD to apply, a person must make an "explicit act of faith in at least one aspect of the true religion".  Can you provide examples of what those aspects would be?  This is what at least a handful of us are asking here.  If we have missed it, then just copy and paste it in a new post.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 03:53:13 PM
Wrong. Just as those are members of the Church are so of their own free will, those who are not members are not so of their own free will.  

"If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children." - Fr. Wathen

Nonsense:

That there is such a thing as invincible ignorance refutes your claim that all those who are outside the visible Church are so by their own will.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 03:58:28 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)

Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

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)
 
 
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.


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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [/color](pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)[/size]


Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [/size]nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
 “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation
nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
 
 Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
 “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 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.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
 “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which
no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
 
 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true
Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which
no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which
none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
 
 Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 Chapter VII.
 
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
 This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439,
ex cathedra:  “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.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
 On Baptism
 
 Canon 2.
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, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Canon 5. If any one saith, that
baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
 way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
 Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
 have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
 
 
 (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)


That implicit baptism of desire is taught in most post-Tridentine catechisms, taught or accepted by all pope’s, saints, and that Council itself (which did not distinguish between explicit and partial mplicit), and contradicted by none, shows it is the Feeneyites, and not I, who are misinterpreting Trent.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 04:02:24 PM
I'll wait for Sean to clear up what he means, but i've heard it from others that:

Implicit BoD, would happen where someone who already assents to the two chief mysteries (the Trinity and the Incarnation), but who either has not yet heard of baptism, or has heard of it and doesn't know what it is. 

This is absolutely false.  Implicit desire of baptism means the desire is not openly expressed, but is implied by actions.  One who doesn't know what baptism is or who has never heard of it, cannot desire it AT ALL.  One who only knows a few mysteries of the faith does NOT have an implicit desire for the Faith or Baptism because there are plenty of atheists/freemasons/satanists who know the Faith VERY well, yet still reject it.  Or, there are many protestants who accept the Incarnation/Trinity but 100% REJECT the necessity of baptism, since they only accept "faith alone" for salvation.

No, knowledge and assent of the main mysteries of the Faith are not sufficient for salvation and BOD, as Trent clearly says.

Those who misuderstand and corrupt 'implicit desire', through sentimental theology and a denial of Trent, create the atmosphere for universal salvation, which is possible in any religion, because of their error that "faith in God" or "faith in some mysteries" suffices for desire, and eventually, salvation.

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 04:03:26 PM
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Unless the Holy Ghost provides man with the disposition/inspiration to be justified, then he will not be.  Unless the Holy Ghost disposes man to accept the Church, he will not accept it.

Those whom God does not dispose/inspire to be baptized or to have knowledge of the Faith, are those whom God knew, from all eternity, would not accept His graces.  Usually the adage of "grace builds on nature" applies.  This is called the mystery of salvation.

Your quote has nothing to do with the comment you are responding to.

It is more or less a condemnation of Pelagianism.

My response that that implicit baptism pertains to souls who never had a chance to accept or deny the faith was in response to the assertion that such had denied the faith.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 04:07:48 PM
There is no such thing as 'invincible ignorance':

That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.  (John 1:9)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 04:10:37 PM
There is no such thing as 'invincible ignorance':

That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.  (John 1:9)

Then why are saints, popes, and doctors discussing and teaching it?

Moreover, why are none found condemning it?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 04:13:23 PM
The only thing that that post states is that, in order for implicit BOD to apply, a person must make an "explicit act of faith in at least one aspect of the true religion".  Can you provide examples of what those aspects would be?  This is what at least a handful of us are asking here.  If we have missed it, then just copy and paste it in a new post.

2V-

A supernatural faith in any article of faith  suffices for a man to desire the whole faith.

For example, if a priest or book taught one the dogma of the Trinity or Incarnation, it might in so dispose a soul to implicitly desire and accept the whole thing, had they only known (which is why only God can say who really has been baptized by implicit desire).

Obviously, the more doctrine is known, the better the chance the implicit desire can be formed (but also, the greater chance it will be rejected).

What we are really talking about here is cooperation with grace and merit (subjects I will not even enter into, if we are flailing so wildly on the basics).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 04:15:19 PM

Quote
A supernatural faith in any article of faith  suffices for a man to desire the whole faith.
This is a denial of what Trent teaches.  
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 04:23:13 PM
This is a denial of what Trent teaches.  

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you really have no idea what Trent teaches (similar to the way in which a Feeneyite has no idea what John 3:5 teaches).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 04:29:51 PM
Trent does not make ANY exceptions for those ignorant of the Faith.  No one can be ignorant of the natural law, but they can be ignorant of the Faith...but this does not excuse them from the obligation to be a member of the Church.

Those who follow the natural law will be given the grace to hear the Truths of the Faith.  As Scripture says: “God wills that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth.”

Most do not follow the natural law, so God does not give them an opportunity to hear the Faith because it is casting “pearls before swine”.  As St Luke explains:  

He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater.  (Luke 16:10)

Further, as Trent teaches, no one is able to have the grace to accept the Truth, unless he is inspired by the Holy Spirit and properly disposed.  So, the idea that one in sin (ie all those unbaptized) can make an “act of supernatural faith” is anti-Trent.  One in sin can’t do ANYTHING supernatural, which requires grace.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 04:34:48 PM
Trent does not make ANY exceptions for those ignorant of the Faith.  No one can be ignorant of the natural law, but they can be ignorant of the Faith...but this does not excuse them from the obligation to be a member of the Church.

Those who follow the natural law will be given the grace to hear the Truths of the Faith.  As Scripture says: “God wills that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth.”

Most do not follow the natural law, so God does not give them an opportunity to hear the Faith because it is casting “pearls before swine”.  As St Luke explains:  

He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater.  (Luke 16:10)

However, as Trent teaches, no one is able to have the grace to accept the Truth, unless he is inspired by the Holy Spirit and properly disposed.  So, the idea that one in sin (ie all those unbaptized) can make an “act of supernatural faith” is anti-Trent.  One in sin can’t do ANYTHING supernatural, which requires grace.  

Trent does not distinguish between explicit or implicit baptism of desire.

Since both were commonly taught both before and after the council, the presumption is that Trent codified both as an article of faith.

And the presumption is transformed into a certainty by recalling that not only have Doctors of the Church so interpreted that council, but the infallible universal ordinary magisterium has taught thusly without contradiction ever after.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2018, 04:43:55 PM
As we are now running over the same old ground, I leave this thread exactly where I first broached the subject a week ago:

Feeneyite’s (and sedes) suffer from a peculiar Anglo narrowness of mind, which tends to make them play off one doctrine against another, rather than a broadmindedness which would enable them to integrate doctrine by nuance, distinction, and context (all of which arouse in them the suspicion of compromise and contradiction so prominently displayed in this/these threads).

But there is no way around it:

Either I and the entire universal ordinary magisterium since Trent have a better grasp of what that council really taught, or Fr Feeney was the greatest Catholic in the history of the Church, and there has been a sede vacante/interregnum for hundreds of years.

Pax.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 04:59:21 PM
The problem is that you erroneously interpret implicit desire contrary to Trent.  Go re-read the entire Session 6.  I'll post part of Chapter VI below:

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm)
CHAPTER VI. The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, 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 (Incarnation, Original Sin, Trinity, Redemption...not just one of these, but ALL OF THEM),

-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 which must be performed before baptism: (So penitence MUST be part of this implicit desire for the Faith.  A generalized "belief in God" or a desire to "do what God wants" is not sufficient.)

 lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.  (The desire for Baptism can be implicit, in the sense that it is "implied" by actions and not VERBALLY expressed, but that does not mean that the desire is unexpressed, for Trent says that one must purpose/decide to receive baptism, to begin a new life (i.e. turn from sin) and keep the commandments.  This means that the person, in his heart, must WILL that baptism be received, even if he does not explicity tell anyone else, though by his actions, it is implied what he wants (i.e. he takes catechism classes).
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 05:02:02 PM
Quote
You have demonstrated repeatedly that you really have no idea what Trent teaches
A non-answer.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 22, 2018, 05:04:12 PM
That implicit baptism of desire is taught in most post-Tridentine catechisms, taught or accepted by all pope’s, saints, and that Council itself (which did not distinguish between explicit and partial mplicit), and contradicted by none, shows it is the Feeneyites, and not I, who are misinterpreting Trent.
I quoted about 20 dogmas and the writer bypasses them all (does an end run) with his persona opinion, never analyzing how his "implicit baptism of desire" fares against all those dogmas.

Add to that the lie that "implicit baptism of desire is taught in most post-Tridentine catechisms, taught or accepted by all pope’s, saints, and that Council". The writer does not even know that what he believes, and teaches here is not implicit baptism of desire but is salvation by implicit faith, which is a novelty and does not require belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, and is not taught by Trent, or any Saint or Pope ever. He does not know the difference between implicit baptism of desire, which requires a belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity and what he believes which is salvation by implicit faith. The writer is totally winging his every word. The blind leading the blind.

(https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm)"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 (https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-4.htm)And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2Tim4)

I post 20 dogmas (sound Doctrine) and the writer post his erroneous personal opinions.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 22, 2018, 05:08:06 PM
Nonsense:

That there is such a thing as invincible ignorance refutes your claim that all those who are outside the visible Church are so by their own will.
Ridiculous. It is only all too easy to prove you are entirely wrong - simply go out and ask the first person you see, it matters not whether they be invincibly ignorant, an altogether sincere non-Catholic or anything in between, and tell them what they MUST do in order to attain salvation. When they tell you they want no part of it, there is the proof you are wrong. Keep asking until you find one who wants to become a member, maybe take out an add or TV commercial - let us know how that goes for you.

Again, if God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it.

This simple truth all BODers wholly reject, and all BODers absolutely have got to reject Divine Providence (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/divine-providence/msg508764/#msg508764) in this matter, if they are to maintain their error in favor of man saving himself.

In all things God provides for us whatever it might be that we need for us attaining salvation, if we do not obtain what we [desire or] pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment, so says the Haydock as regards Matthew 7:8 - so the BODers are trying to convince the population that God does not consider the sacrament He personally instituted for no other reason than for our salvation, conducive to our salvation.

Quite amazing when you stop to think about how screwed up the dogmatic BODers are.

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2018, 05:08:20 PM
Quote
Trent does not distinguish between explicit or implicit baptism of desire.
The desire can be expressed (explicit) or implied (implicit) to other persons or the Church, but the person is required to DECIDE, to WILL that he receive baptism.  The desire for baptism SPECIFICALLY is required.    See chapter 6, of session 6.

Quote
Since both were commonly taught both before and after the council, the presumption is that Trent codified both as an article of faith.
If you define implicit as Trent does, then I agree.

Quote
And the presumption is transformed into a certainty by recalling that not only have Doctors of the Church so interpreted that council, but the infallible universal ordinary magisterium has taught thusly without contradiction ever after.
There's plenty of theologians who agree with you, but there's not a consensus, so the universal magisterium is not in play here, thus neither is infallibility.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 22, 2018, 05:20:51 PM
I don't see it as so dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in the baptism of desire of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas (STA), 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 in his own words teaching against what everyone today believes, that BOD saves  Jєωs, 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, 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: “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 Jєωs, 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.)








Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 22, 2018, 05:53:46 PM
Quote from: Karl Rahner, Was ist Häresie, 1961
Noch ein Franz Xaver hat den Japanern, die er bekehren wollte, gesagt, daß selbstverstandlich alle ihre Vorfahren zur Hölle verdammt sind. Und auch ein Augustinus hätte nach seiner Theologie so antworten müssen, und diese Haltung gehörte doch bis fast auf unsere Tage zum Grundpathos der christlichen Missionsarbeit unter den Heiden.

Quote from: Clumsy translation of Karl Rahner, What is heresy, 1961
Francis Xavier would tell the Japanese, which  he wanted to convert, that their ancestors as a matter of course are damned to hell. Also, an Augustine, following his theology, would have had to answer in the same manner, and this attitude belonged up to almost our days to the basic pathos of christian missionary work in midst of the pagans.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 22, 2018, 06:09:10 PM
Quote from: Joseph Ratzinger, Interview, 2016
Se è vero che i grandi missionari del XVI secolo erano ancora convinti che chi non è battezzato è per sempre perduto, e ciò spiega il loro impegno missionario, nella Chiesa cattolica dopo il Concilio Vaticano II tale convinzione è stata definitivamente abbandonata. Da ciò derivò una doppia profonda crisi. [...]

Se c’è chi si può salvare anche in altre maniere non è più evidente, alla fin fine, perché il cristiano stesso sia legato alle esigenze dalla fede cristiana e alla sua morale. [...]


Quote from: Clumsy translation
While it is true that the great missionaries of the sixteenth century still were convinced, that those, who are not baptized, are lost forever, and that this explains their missionary commitment, this conviction was finally abandoned in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. From this a deep double crisis arose. [...]

If one can be saved in a different way, it is no more evident, why a Christian should be bound to the necessity of the christian faith and morals. [...]

Intervista al papa emerito Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI (http://www.avvenire.it/Cultura/Pagine/Facciamoci-plasmare-da-Cristo-.aspx)
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 22, 2018, 07:12:42 PM
Trent does not distinguish between explicit or implicit baptism of desire.

That is because Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 22, 2018, 07:33:44 PM

My response that that implicit baptism pertains to souls who never had a chance to accept or deny the faith was in response to the assertion that such had denied the faith.

In other words, they are no different from the ones described as "anonymous Christians" by chief VII theologian, Rahner:

Quote
The pagan after the beginning of the Christian mission, who lives in the state of Christ’s grace through faith, hope and love, yet who has no explicit knowledge of the fact that his life is orientated in grace-given salvation to Christ.

And notice it is the "implicit" nature of these acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, which distinguishes “anonymous Christians” from the visible Christians VII Council was referring to in Lumen Gentium.

So not only the OP thinks that a single belief in just one, really any one, article of the true religion, suffices for salvation, but this belief can also be "implicit" so at the end, anyone in a false religion can be said to be an invisible Catholic, belonging to an invisible Church.  





Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 23, 2018, 08:27:25 AM
That is because Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire.

Even if one were to argue that Trent allows for a Baptism of Desire, it quite clearly only pertains to those who have the dispositions for Baptism as described in the Treatise on Justification, i.e. basically to catechumens only.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 23, 2018, 08:30:55 AM
Either I and the entire universal ordinary magisterium since Trent have a better grasp of what that council really taught ...

Listen, you ignorant and bad-willed baboon.  No Magisterial docuмent and no Doctor of the Church has ever taught that Baptism of Desire could be had by anyone without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, i.e. that it could apply to infidels.  But you deliberately conflate the narrow understanding of "implicit" Baptism of Desire with the implicit faith of infidels.  You have no support for your heresies in any official Catholic teaching.  This novelty that infidels could be saved was concocted by a couple of Jesuits around the year 1600 ... contrary to 1600 years of prior Catholic teaching and the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers that explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2018, 08:31:09 AM
Salvation without explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity are declared  dogmatically impossible 

by the Church:


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.”




Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.



And confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri

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. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)



Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)


Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 23, 2018, 09:03:14 AM
This is what Catholics believe:

Nothing is impossible with God, absolutely nothing. If a person desires to be baptized, to be Catholic, then our faith teaches us  Almighty God will provide the time to do it, the water for doing it and the minister for doing it - just the same as He has done billions of times for each and every individual who has ever been, and will always do for all who ever will be baptized. If He does not provide these for the person, then no person ever has or ever will be baptized. Again, this is what Catholics believe.

If we were to know of an infant, or an adult for that matter, who died shortly after being baptized, we are awestruck and we give glory to Almighty God for giving so great a grace to that person, and all glorify God in His greatness and providence which WE KNOW He surely bestowed upon that person.

How is God glorified when people are able to save themself with a last second good intention, most often about a God and faith and sacrament they never knew and didn't want to know? The BODers say, contrary to Scripture and the faith, that God welcomes into heaven those people He never knew and who never knew Him.          

The whole idea is a blatant and awful belittling, and does a terrible injustice to God in His Divine Providence.  


Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2018, 10:34:26 AM
Listen, you ignorant and bad-willed baboon.  No Magisterial docuмent and no Doctor of the Church has ever taught that Baptism of Desire could be had by anyone without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, i.e. that it could apply to infidels.  But you deliberately conflate the narrow understanding of "implicit" Baptism of Desire with the implicit faith of infidels.  You have no support for your heresies in any official Catholic teaching.  This novelty that infidels could be saved was concocted by a couple of Jesuits around the year 1600 ... contrary to 1600 years of prior Catholic teaching and the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers that explicit knowledge of and belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation.
Notice that our postings about the same exact subject, spring out of nowhere, and are 24 seconds apart. Your posting was first, and is simple and to the point, while mine contains all the supporting details which completes your posting. We were writing those quotes with no cooperation, and they are 24 seconds apart in posting. Pretty amazing. Why did we write that at that exact moment? It could only be from God.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2018, 10:53:57 AM
How much longer until SJ starts a new thread on the same topic, and then eventually quits that thread just like he quit this one?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 23, 2018, 11:30:36 AM
Notice that our postings about the same exact subject, spring out of nowhere, and are 24 seconds apart. Your posting was first, and is simple and to the point, while mine contains all the supporting details which completes your posting. We were writing those quotes with no cooperation, and they are 24 seconds apart in posting. Pretty amazing. Why did we write that at that exact moment? It could only be from God.

Of course, everything is ordered by God's providence.  I think that both of us realized at the exact same time how Johnson conflates the implicit faith of infidels with the implicit desire for Baptism in order to pretend that the Magisterium and Doctors teach this notion.  They do not.  So we both realized we have to flush him out from taking cover behind the Magisterium for his heresies.

Take ANY of the quotes that BoDers are wont to spam out there in favor of BoD, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them deals with the case of a CATECHUMEN, someone with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as taught by the authority of the Church.  Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law refers only to the case of a catechumen (not even a catechumen-like person).  Salvation of infidels is nothing more than a Jesuitical novelty invented around the year 1600 and never taught by the Church or any Doctor of the Church ... but, sadly, not condemned by the Church either (unless you count the teaching of Vatican I which effectively rules this out).  But I believe that God allowed the error to remain uncondemned because it is this error which is providing THE test of faith in this time of crisis.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
How much longer until SJ starts a new thread on the same topic, and then eventually quits that thread just like he quit this one?

LoT used to do the same thing.  He would excoriate "Feeneyites" for rejecting St. Thomas.  Then when you turned the tables on him by pointing out that he rejected St. Thomas by believing in the 2-article-explicit-faith theory, he'd disappear from the thread.  So he would spam BoD quotes out there, trying to make it SEEMS like they supported his own implicit faith theory, which none of them did.  But when you flushed him out from hiding behind these, then he disappeared and started a new thread where he resumed his spamming.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 23, 2018, 11:34:21 AM
As I said, the VERY SECOND that someone starts applying "Baptism" of Desire to people who are already baptized (e.g. the Orthodox), you know exactly who and what you're dealing with.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2018, 11:34:41 AM
Quote
But I believe that God allowed the error to remain uncondemned because it is this error which is providing THE test of faith in this time of crisis.
Great point.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 23, 2018, 11:50:33 AM
Take ANY of the quotes that BoDers are wont to spam out there in favor of BoD, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them deals with the case of a CATECHUMEN, someone with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as taught by the authority of the Church.  Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law refers only to the case of a catechumen (not even a catechumen-like person).  Salvation of infidels is nothing more than a Jesuitical novelty invented around the year 1600 and never taught by the Church or any Doctor of the Church ... but, sadly, not condemned by the Church either (unless you count the teaching of Vatican I which effectively rules this out).  But I believe that God allowed the error to remain uncondemned because it is this error which is providing THE test of faith in this time of crisis.

In the very same chapter in which Our Lord institutes the Sacrament of Baptism, (Jh 3:5), He says that he who does not believe is judged already. It follows that everyone who does not believe in Christ, with the Faith that the Apostle spoke, this is, "Faith which worketh by charity" is condemned already. Every Jєω, Pagan, Moslem, etc. is judged already if he dies in his incredulity. He shall not come to judgement either particular or general, to be discussed according to his works of mercy done or omitted.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2018, 06:23:49 PM
LoT used to do the same thing.  He would excoriate "Feeneyites" for rejecting St. Thomas.  Then when you turned the tables on him by pointing out that he rejected St. Thomas by believing in the 2-article-explicit-faith theory, he'd disappear from the thread.  So he would spam BoD quotes out there, trying to make it SEEMS like they supported his own implicit faith theory, which none of them did.  But when you flushed him out from hiding behind these, then he disappeared and started a new thread where he resumed his spamming.
The same thought came to me, he reminded me of LOT. Hopefully, he will not let his pride get in the way of learning something new. Though I doubt it, for it is rare to find a BODer that is loyal to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they all just use them and throw them under the bus to teach what they truly believe, that anyone can be saved who is a "good" person.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2018, 08:28:43 AM
anyone can be saved who is a "good" person.

THIS really is the essence of BoDism for most who hold it, and especially those who vigorously promote it.  Rarely is it about the rare case of a pious catechumen who zealously desired Baptism but was cut off before he could receive it.  [Of course, even in that scenario, BoDers would make Our Lord into a liar when He said, "Ask and you shall receive."  If someone desires and asks for the Sacrament of Baptism, would God refuse it?]  It's always been about the revival of Pelagianism where natural "goodness" can in some way merit salvation.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 24, 2018, 09:41:05 AM
THIS really is the essence of BoDism for most who hold it, and especially those who vigorously promote it.  Rarely is it about the rare case of a pious catechumen who zealously desired Baptism but was cut off before he could receive it.  [Of course, even in that scenario, BoDers would make Our Lord into a liar when He said, "Ask and you shall receive."  If someone desires and asks for the Sacrament of Baptism, would God refuse it?]  It's always been about the revival of Pelagianism where natural "goodness" can in some way merit salvation.
"and especially those that vigorously promote BOD",  is exactly my experience. 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 24, 2018, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: Council of Trent, Sessio VI, cuм hoc tempore
Caput IV
Insinuatur descriptio justifications impit et modus ejus in statu gratiae

Quibus verbis justificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum. Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.

source (https://books.google.com.br/books?id=4LppAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA28-IA1&ots=bCe7HHLGzR&dq=Trento%20%22cuм%20hoc%20tempore%22%20latin&hl=de&pg=PA30-IA1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Some want to have the phrase "translatio sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest" mean that the translation can happen with either the bath or the desire thereof. But that is not what the latin text says.

In latin, after a negation (like sine), or in a rhetorical question which is used in place of a negation, a second negated expression can only be appended using "aut" (and never using "et"). Examples:

Quote
Nihil tam vile aut tam vulgare est.
Quote
Nothing is so cheap and vulgar.

Quote
Quid est levius aut turpius?
Quote
What is more airy and ignominious?

It is illegal to write "Nihil tam vile et tam vulgare est." or "Quid est levius et turpius?" Thus, resolving double negation (sine+non), "sine lavacro aut voto fieri non potest" means: can happen only with both bath and desire thereof.

There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.

Finally, reading the whole text of "cuм hoc tempore" impartially, one finds that it teaches no form of baptism other than the sacrament of baptism. It is disingenuous to use the single word "desire", expressing that bath as well as desire thereof are necessary, to boldly claim that the Council of Trent teaches "Baptism of Desire".



Latin examples from: Rubenbauer, Hofmann: "Lateinische Grammatik", 12. koor. Auflage, ISBN 978-3-7661-5627-3 (https://www.lehmanns.de/shop/geisteswissenschaften/3438899-9783766156273-grammatiken-iii-heine-lateinische-grammatik), §220 Doppelte Verneinung, page 253.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Stubborn on August 24, 2018, 10:08:25 AM
There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.
Very good point.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 24, 2018, 10:17:44 AM
Quote
There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.
I had made that exact point using satire (in red) in my posting below:


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)

Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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 (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 

Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 24, 2018, 10:24:15 AM
@Last Tradhican

(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/thumbup.gif)


Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2018, 10:52:48 AM
Quote
"translatio sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest"
So you're saying that the phrase "aut ejus voto" means "AND the desire" not "or the desire"?  This is due to the the use of the word "sine" earlier in the sentence?  Interesting.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2018, 12:31:38 PM
Trent used the phrase very carefully, "justification cannot happen without".

This means necessary cause.  Desire is necessary for justification.  No desire, no justification.  This does not mean that desire alone SUFFICES for justification.  This is the age-old scholastic distinction between sufficient cause and necessary cause.  AT NO POINT DOES TRENT TEACH THAT DESIRE ALONE SUFFICES FOR JUSTIFICATION.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2018, 12:37:36 PM
So you're saying that the phrase "aut ejus voto" means "AND the desire" not "or the desire"?  This is due to the the use of the word "sine" earlier in the sentence?  Interesting.

Correct.  Even in English.

I cannot play (a game of) baseball without a bat or a ball.

This means that I cannot play baseball unless I have BOTH a bat and a ball and that if EITHER ONE IS MISSING, I cannot play baseball.  In the positive, if I say, I CAN play baseball with a bat or a ball, then this means that I can play the game if I have one OR the other (not necessarily both).  See the difference.  If Trent had wanted to say that EITHER the laver OR the desire sufficed, Trent would have used an EITHER...OR construct (like AUT...AUT or VEL...VEL).  In the case of Confession, Trent uses "VEL...VEL" to mean that either the desire or actual Confession sufficed for restoration to justification.  Trent did NOT do that here with Baptism.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2018, 01:01:48 PM
Quote
I cannot play (a game of) baseball without a bat or a ball.
Yes, I understand your explanation and it is VERY telling that they used the double "vel" in reference to confession but not with baptism.
It still makes it more clear (in my opinion) by saying "I cannot play a baseball game without a bat AND ball."  Using "or", at least in english, seems like you give an option.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Ladislaus on August 24, 2018, 01:17:55 PM
Yes, I understand your explanation and it is VERY telling that they used the double "vel" in reference to confession but not with baptism.
It still makes it more clear (in my opinion) by saying "I cannot play a baseball game without a bat AND ball."  Using "or", at least in english, seems like you give an option.

But by using and, the BoDers will say that we're mistranslating the word ... which technically we are, based on our reading of it.

You're right, though, the "or" in the baseball example is inherently AMBIGUOUS.  It could go either way.  But it's immediately disambiguated by the phrases which follows.

Trent says "justification cannot happen without the laver or the desire, as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit."  Trent is using Our Lord's words as a citation proof-text for the "laver or the desire", since Our Lord's water corresponds with the laver and the Holy Ghost with the desire (since earlier Trent taught that the Holy Ghost inspires this desire in the soul).  So to take this passage the BoDer way would be to say that Trent taught.  "you can be justified with either water or the desire because Jesus taught that we must be born again of water AND the desire".
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2018, 01:45:22 PM
So, the moral of the story, don't be a protestant and take phrases out of context.  The phrase must be understood as part of the WHOLE sentence/paragraph!!  What a novel idea (sarcasm alert)?
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Cantarella on August 24, 2018, 02:32:13 PM
But by using and, the BoDers will say that we're mistranslating the word ... which technically we are, based on our reading of it.

You're right, though, the "or" in the baseball example is inherently AMBIGUOUS.  It could go either way.  But it's immediately disambiguated by the phrases which follows.

Trent says "justification cannot happen without the laver or the desire, as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit."  Trent is using Our Lord's words as a citation proof-text for the "laver or the desire", since Our Lord's water corresponds with the laver and the Holy Ghost with the desire (since earlier Trent taught that the Holy Ghost inspires this desire in the soul).  So to take this passage the BoDer way would be to say that Trent taught.  "you can be justified with either water or the desire because Jesus taught that we must be born again of water AND the desire".

And this word "voto" is found in the Justification section; not even in the Sacraments section nor the Baptism canons. If Trent would actually have taught "Baptism of Desire" as many are prone to carelessly affirm; then it would have made more sense for the statement to be included in the specific section dealing with Baptism.

Salvation by "justification" alone (for non-Catholics!), is basically what these people really believe in. They just throw the terms out there without knowing what they really mean nor the proper relations between them.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: Struthio on August 27, 2018, 01:23:29 PM
A creed is a litany of articles of faith, a litany of dogmas. Some quote the Athanasian Creed as a proof that noone can be saved without confessing the articles of the same creed, since that creed not only lists some articles of faith but also declares the necessity to confess said articles to be saved.

There is another creed which beside its articles of faith declares that noone can be saved without confessing the same articles. It is the profession of faith of the Vatican Council:

Quote from: Vatican Council, Session 2, Jan 6, 1870

Profession of faith

1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
[...]
4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
[...]
14. [...]
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]
papalencyclicals.net, Vatican Council (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm)

The text unequivocally states:

1.) (since the new law) noone can be saved without having received a sacrament
2.) anyone not confessing 1.) can't be saved

There is no use in quoting Fathers, Saints, theologians, catechisms or whatever other fallible sources to contradict and attack the creed of an ecuмenical council.
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: forlorn on August 27, 2018, 02:21:49 PM
And this word "voto" is found in the Justification section; not even in the Sacraments section nor the Baptism canons. If Trent would actually have taught "Baptism of Desire" as many are prone to carelessly affirm; then it would have made more sense for the statement to be included in the specific section dealing with Baptism.

Salvation by "justification" alone (for non-Catholics!), is basically what these people really believe in. They just throw the terms out there without knowing what they really mean nor the proper relations between them.
Furthermore, if they are to extend "voto" to Baptism, they must do it for ALL Sacraments. So therefore if we have Baptism of Desire, we must also have Matrimony of Desire, Communion of Desire, Holy Orders of Desire, etc. 
Title: Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
Post by: DecemRationis on February 09, 2019, 10:25:05 AM
The tempers are certainly running high now, which is usually when I bow out.  I'll kindly request that any of my interlocutors (or Sean Johnson) PM me when it gets back on track.  I've singularly endeavored, for five pages now, to only discuss one argument (not a "conflation" of them, as Lad contends-- he has a bad habit of setting up strawmen so that he can feed his bizarrely masochistic obsession with unorthodoxy).  I don't like sounding like a broken record, so that's it for me.  I truly fear adopting the sort of impatience and eagerness to discover error so rampant among some of the posters in this thread.  I think that's soul-destroying.  Where your treasure is, there is your heart.  

I certainly won't ask (even less expect) an apology, but I gave no heretical formulations (that's twice, without batting an eye, that Lad has thrown this type of charge my way, never substantiated).  Ladislaus is so committed to unearthing unorthodoxy that he's starting to invent it.  Rather than assuming that one understands, go to my posting history and look for the formulation in question.  ctrl+f will be your friend.   https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=2023

I'll leave you guys with this consideration from Pope Pius XI's most trusted moral theologian, Fr. Vermeersch:

.
See you guys later

Mithrandylan,

I of late have been just a reader here and haven't been posting. I happened upon this interesting topic just now add some belated comments. Unless I missed something in scanning the rest of this thread, it appears that this was your last post in it. I am sorry for that. I applaud you and commend you for your attempt to have a reasonable, courteous, and charitable discussion of this important topic.

I think your observation about the increase of justification was a keen one. The observation of some of the "Feeneyites" here about the necessity of the sacraments, and of course in this context the sacrament of initiation, the sacrament of faith, for salvation is another that is key to this discussion.

I believe in the necessity of an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism as the minimum necessary for true justification and salvation, and I believe that that maintains the necessity of the sacraments for salvation and also allows for your what I believe to be true reading of Trent as to saving or justifying supernatural faith to be accessible to the catechumen before the sacrament is received per Chapter VI of the Session of Trent on justification. I also believe it gives a nod to Cantrella's point about the Catechumen begging from the Church that faith that comes from the sacrament (Session VII below), a faith that comes from or through the grace of the sacrament even if it comes only by an explicit desire for the sacrament and the grace or faith it bestows.


Quote
CHAPTER VI.

The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, 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 which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

There is chain here that culminates, "lastly," in the purpose to receive baptism. The full "chain" is necessary for the disposition unto justice, and this purpose to receive justice is the last, necessary link in the chain.

In Chapter VII of the same session, it is said:

Quote
For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.

To remain in a state of justification that avails to salvation, which was initiated in the "disposed" Catechumen who previously "beg[ged] for the faith which bestows life everlasting" (again pointing to an explicit desire for the sacrament), the sacrament must be received, the sacrament of "faith" which bestows life everlasting, either by its worthy receipt or the explicit desire for the same in the case of those for those of whom it is said in the Roman Catechism:

Quote
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.

This was a very good discussion and I'm sorry you felt impelled to leave it and that it didn't bear more fruit.


Decemrationis