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:
In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.
the explicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion
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.
[...]
DECREE ON JUSTIFICATIONProem.
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.
[...]
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.
(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?
(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.
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.
Multi enim laborant ignorantia crassa articulorum Fidei, quod explicite scire, et credere tenentur, aeque ac Sacramentorum.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
.
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.
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
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.
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...
Whosoever will be saved...it is necessary to have an explicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion
So we go from:Usually it is the ones who scream heretic the most that are the true heretics.
The Anathasian Creed:
To >>>>
Sean Johnson:
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.)
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.
Look at the Feeneyites, all frothy and foaming.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.
This IS good fun!
:popcorn:
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.
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.
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.
Well Trent says faith comes from hearing.What a Protestant sounding attempt at a rebuttal. Well done, brother Mith!
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.
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.
What a Protestant sounding attempt at a rebuttal. Well done, brother Mith!
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.
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..
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)?
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.
Look at the Feeneyites, all frothy and foaming.
This IS good fun!
:popcorn:
Hey Mith-
Ask him how, if this is true, could Fr Feeney have admitted that men could be justified without water baptism?
:popcorn:
...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:
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see that this is all you have left, Johnson, after your initial argument was demonstrated to be utterly moronic.
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.
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:
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 revealedYou 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.
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..
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.Yes, the good Fr. Feeney is quite clear:
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.
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..
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
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)?
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..
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
.
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.
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.
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"..
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.
Vatican I, chapter 3 talks about Faith..
Too long to post it all. I'm still not sure I understand your question so I couldn't cite to answer it..
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).
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.
Struthio, Ladislaus, and it seems like Cantarella have all argued that supernatural faith is only first received at baptism.
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.
.
Nice. What does it say?
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.Study the Rite of Baptism (pre-Vatican II) - provided below.
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."
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: Amen | Sponsor/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: Amen | Sponsor/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: Amen | Sponsor/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 fire | Priest: 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) |
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.)
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."
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].
I emphasized a few things for convenience. Mainly, that Trent is describing the acquisition of supernatural faith on the part of the catechumen.
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.
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.
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.
In other words, God damns the just.
Got it.
:popcorn:
Father Feeney holds that God will never allow the justified to die without the Sacrament.
Nobody is just, if he hasn't received the sacrament of baptism. Before baptism, men are "impious" and "unjust". Read cuм hoc tempore!
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)
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.
Is it theologically possible that any of those who die justified are damned?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 you answer yes, can you provide a single citation to back it?
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.
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?
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.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.
For your (mis)reading of Trent to be correct, the existence of the “limbus patrum” is an impossibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
?? 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.
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.
No, no, no:
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.
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.
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.
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)?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.
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 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.
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)!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
One who is in sanctifying grace is not necessarily a member of the Church, as Trent explains.
An unbaptized but justified person
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.
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/)
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.
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”.
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.
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.
PS: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
...or desire for it.
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.
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.
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
Not without it and not without desire for it. You should not fall for bad translations.
This is what be stressed time and time again. It's not BoD, per se.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16summo.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?).
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 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?
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 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.
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?"Not quite. Perhaps by our own selfishness and lack of charity, those souls could have been saved.
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
How can an unbaptized person be justified, while the Council of Trent teaches that the instrumental cause of Justification is the sacrament of baptism?
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.
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."
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.
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).
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.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.
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 "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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
Was this question ever answered in this thread? Perhaps it was and I missed it?
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?
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?
They didn’t “refuse 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.
They never had the CHANCE to become Catholics.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
This is a denial of what Trent teaches.
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.
You have demonstrated repeatedly that you really have no idea what Trent teachesA non-answer.
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.
Nonsense: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. [...]
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. [...]
Trent does not distinguish between explicit or implicit baptism of desire.
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.
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.
That is because Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."and especially those that vigorously promote BOD", is exactly my experience.
Caput IVInsinuatur 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.
Nihil tam vile aut tam vulgare est.
Nothing is so cheap and vulgar.
Quid est levius aut turpius?
What is more airy and ignominious?
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.
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/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/thumbup.gif)
"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.
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.
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.
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".
papalencyclicals.net, Vatican Council (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm)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 [...]
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.