Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"  (Read 6205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3745
  • Reputation: +3638/-1087
  • Gender: Male
Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
« on: August 19, 2018, 08:00:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!5
  • Ironically, it is Fr. Pfeiffer in this old Angelus Article who points out the common teaching of the Church: Baptism of desire is de fide:

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


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

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

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

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

    He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3745
    • Reputation: +3638/-1087
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #1 on: August 19, 2018, 08:21:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • As regards arguing about how much explicit desire suffices for implicit desire, I said this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-by-mgr-williamson-issue-dlxxvii-(577)/90/ 
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8948
    • Reputation: +3541/-731
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #2 on: August 20, 2018, 06:38:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • "The idea that an individual died before he was able to receive the Sacrament of Baptism is equally curious, because it is God who determines how long each of us shall live to the second. And it is God Who in His most benevolent Providence grants Baptism to everyone who receives it. Is He a monster (for Whom nothing is impossible or difficult) who instructs certain individuals in the absolute necessity of Baptism, grants them the grace of wishing it, then cuts off their life so that they can never receive it? And then casts them into Hell forever for not having received it? No, on the very contrary. He is an all-loving God, Who most certainly provides to the responsive all that is needful to them. If they are truly desirous of Baptism, if need be, He will provide it, even by a miracle. (It is a miracle to us, but not to Him.) This is what the Scriptures means when it says, "The hand of the Lord is not shortened" (Isaias 59:1)." - Fr. Wathen


    Of all the points that testify against a BOD, I think I like this one the best.
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16518
    • Reputation: +9063/-3680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #3 on: August 20, 2018, 08:39:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ironically, it is Fr. Pfeiffer in this old Angelus Article who points out the common teaching of the Church: Baptism of desire is de fide:

    Pfeiffer's article has to be one of the worst attempts at theology that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.  It's filled with lies and distortions.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16518
    • Reputation: +9063/-3680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #4 on: August 20, 2018, 08:50:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So let's examine the Johnsonian argument above.

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

    I have no words for the epicness of this failure.



    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2601
    • Reputation: +1418/-750
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #5 on: August 20, 2018, 09:39:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The OP continues to post his same basic errors after being corrected many times, he is attempting to construct a building from the top floor down. He first has to personally learn foundations and construction principals before he even begins to talk about a building anything (teaching others anything).

    Some examples:

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

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

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

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



    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16518
    • Reputation: +9063/-3680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #6 on: August 20, 2018, 10:54:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pfeiffer:

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

    This abject lie alone completely discredits Pfeiffer.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7764
    • Reputation: +4560/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #7 on: August 20, 2018, 11:00:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    the explicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion

    Like what exactly? A God who rewards the good and punishes the evil?  ::) (Jews, 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.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Struthio

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 373
    • Reputation: +87/-57
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #8 on: August 20, 2018, 11:06:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Whatever Fr Pfeiffer, any other priest, the SSPX, any other group, any Father or Doctor of the Church ever taught on justification, as Catholics we are bound to stick to the Faith including the definitions and declarations of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church:


    Vatican I: SESSION 2 : 6 January 1870, Profession of faith

    Quote
    Profession of faith

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

    [...]

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

    [...]

    Trent:  SESSION 6 : 1547, Decree on Justification

    Quote
    DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION
    Proem.

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

    [...]

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

    [...]

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

    [...]



    Any teachings about justification without the sacrament of baptism are most strictly forbidden by the Vatican Council as well as by the Council of Trent. They are an attack on the true Faith as professed by the holy Roman Church.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 813
    • Reputation: +360/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #9 on: August 20, 2018, 11:29:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You keep repeating "explicit act of supernatural faith" but you've never explained what actually qualifies.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7764
    • Reputation: +4560/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #10 on: August 20, 2018, 11:47:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0



  • So what are these "mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed" that St. Pius X was referring to here?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16518
    • Reputation: +9063/-3680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #11 on: August 20, 2018, 12:00:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Like what exactly? A God who rewards the good and punishes the evil?  ::) (Jews, Moslems, Hindu, basically all religions and sects agree with this)

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

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

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

    So Johnson fails on that point also.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16518
    • Reputation: +9063/-3680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #12 on: August 20, 2018, 12:02:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Vatican I puts that nail in the coffin of Rewarder God theory by defining supernatural faith as something that has for its object a truth that can be known ONLY by Revelation.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16518
    • Reputation: +9063/-3680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #13 on: August 20, 2018, 12:06:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



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

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

    [hint:  I know the answer, and the key rests with St. Thomas.]

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3420
    • Reputation: +4060/-227
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
    « Reply #14 on: August 20, 2018, 12:11:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • 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 document shorthanded as Instit. but I'm not sure what document 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.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16