http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jun/jun3ftt.htm
No Salvation Outside the Church
"Tough luck, dude, if you were not baptized with water!"
"Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation;along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. 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. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
Thus, what is the meaning of this election? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this election? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to The Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circuмstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
Was I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
Was I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
"Tough luck dude when you invent strawmen and condemn yourself with them."
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fixing-the-conciliar-church) We would have to take over the formerly Catholic structures. And re-consecrate everything. Just to start. If they authentically convert they can join us as laypeople but they [converts from the NO] probably should take a vow of silence and do penance for the rest of their lives refraining from all speaking and writing apart from that which is necessary, say in Confession for instance.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/TLM-Survey-on-entrance-to-Church-and-sacraments)
I was born and raised in the anti-Church.
Was I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
"Tough luck dude when you invent strawmen and condemn yourself with them."
If someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
Quote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Quote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
G-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
G-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Quote from: MithrandylanG-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Myth, think about what you just said for a moment - "the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century" - if he was any good, he would most certainly at least be obscure, more likely slandered and known as a heretic of some sort.
"Well respected" theologians of the 20th century will have much to answer for thanks to the crisis; being the most respected theologian of the 20th century (Fenton also shares that "honor") is not a badge of honor, not by a long shot.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: MithrandylanG-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Myth, think about what you just said for a moment - "the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century" - if he was any good, he would most certainly at least be obscure, more likely slandered and known as a heretic of some sort.
"Well respected" theologians of the 20th century will have much to answer for thanks to the crisis; being the most respected theologian of the 20th century (Fenton also shares that "honor") is not a badge of honor, not by a long shot.
OK, replace "of" with "in" the 20th century if that makes you feel better.
G-L did not contribute to the crisis.
Having to defend him on a Catholic forum is lamentable.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: MithrandylanG-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Myth, think about what you just said for a moment - "the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century" - if he was any good, he would most certainly at least be obscure, more likely slandered and known as a heretic of some sort.
"Well respected" theologians of the 20th century will have much to answer for thanks to the crisis; being the most respected theologian of the 20th century (Fenton also shares that "honor") is not a badge of honor, not by a long shot.
OK, replace "of" with "in" the 20th century if that makes you feel better.
G-L did not contribute to the crisis.
Having to defend him on a Catholic forum is lamentable.
That's a result of having these unorthodox creatures on a Catholic forum.
Any 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Garrigou-Lagrange is a modern day, 20th century theologian, and a Heroin BODer. I don't recommend him, as he does not write clearly. When you are finished reading him you'll be even more confused than had you never read him.
Start by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 online at newadvent on Predestination. Then read what the Great Fathers of the Church had to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/a.htm
Quote from: StubbornAny 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. This just further indicates what many of us already know about you.
Quote from: bowlerQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Garrigou-Lagrange is a modern day, 20th century theologian, and a Heroin BODer. I don't recommend him, as he does not write clearly. When you are finished reading him you'll be even more confused than had you never read him.
Start by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 online at newadvent on Predestination. Then read what the Great Fathers of the Church had to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/a.htm
Oh Oh, I had no idea :surprised: . If he is a defender of BOD, then, I am already biased and has lost all credibility. Someone had recommended that book before. I guess I just stick to St. Augustine and St Thomas on the matter of Predestination then.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: StubbornAny 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. This just further indicates what many of us already know about you.
No, no SJB, you just don't understand how we got into this crisis is all. If you will spend some time meditating on it, perhaps you will begin to understand how it all works and in time you will fully understand.
But for now, remember that if there was any hope of salvation outside the Catholic Church, Holy Mother would have never needed to teach infallibly at all - much less confuse everyone into thinking that when She declared that There is No salvation outside the Church REALLY meant there is salvation outside the Church.
Those of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads. Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted. As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion. We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error. As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along. I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these. They'll know the truth at their judgment.
Quote from: LadislausThose of you who defend EENS, there's probably no point in doing any more of these threads. Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted. As St. Thomas teaches, since the intellect naturally tends towards the truth, the embracing of error comes from bad will, and seeing as they're obstinate and bad willed, there's no point in continuing the discussion. We should just in peace and tranquility profess the dogmatic truths taught by Holy Mother Church and leave them in their error. As Our Lord taught, once they have been rebuked a sufficient number of times, it's time to just kick the dust off our feet, cease casting pearl before them, and move along. I won't be contributing any more comments before the likes of these. They'll know the truth at their judgment.
Ladislaus,
Keep using them as opportunities to teach others. They do shake us out of bed. They are like fleas on a lazy dog, put their by nature to keep dogs from sleeping all day. Personally, I'm learning something every day from those that contribute, like yourself, Stubborn, and the many others that chime in. What we preach is just common sense, reading something as it I written, therefore, we will of course reach more and more people as time goes by. I see new people all of the time coming on.
The HIDE option on CI is also an excellent tool, specially for a person like SJB, who never says anything worth hearing. As far as Lover of Truth and Ambrose, they do sometimes say some things that force me to think. Although when they start to just repeat the same things over and over (Ambrose's saying BOD is defied), I'll put them on HIDE too.
Consequently, SJB,LoT, and Ambrose (like Father Cekada by his own admission) hold this speculative opinion for purely emotional reasons. That's where ALL of BoD comes from,
...my conclusion as to the cause of their ludicrous final belief that someone can be saved despite not having any explicit desire to be baptized, nor to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. This is what 99% of BODers end up having to believe. Only a handful can escape the grip of the ultimate conclusion.
I believe that it starts with disbelief in EENS, "it just can't be", then from there they seek their teaches, disregarding or rationalizing all the inconsistencies.CekadaFr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote just that years ago:
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”HeFr. Fenton is saying that someone who is not baptized, can still be saved by their conscience and "good faith", even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, nor a desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity.
In this belief he goes all the way to reject ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, The Athanasian Creed, The Council and the Catechism of Trent, all the catechisms prior to the 20th century.... in other words, he rejects ALL of tradition, he rejects the universal ordinary magisterium, and the solemn magisterium.
And this is what happens to all BODers, it is like drug use, they start out in disbelief and snatch on to the relatively harmless drug of baptism of desire of the catechumen, and end up in the Heroin of "someone who is not baptized, can still be saved by their conscience and "good faith", even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, nor a desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity".
The foundation of the addiction is asFr. CekadaFr. Joseph Clifford Fenton admits: "It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics,.... none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Then from there they seek their teaches according to their own desires, disregarding or rationalizing all the inconsistencies, and they are at EVERY TURN
Quote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
"Tough luck dude when you invent strawmen and condemn yourself with them."
I did not say that you taught you don't need supernatural faith or the need to be in sanctifying grace to be saved. I was not erecting a strawman. It is clear you did not understand why I made that post. I considered your post to be blasphemous. It is better to avoid mockery when discussing sacred things. I know you say that you need to have supernatural faith to be saved, though you believe you can have that faith without being a believing Catholic. Similarly you have claimed that you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation while also believing that people can be saved without baptism and I also know that you add words to at least one of the sacred dogmas to give it a different meaning more pleasing to your ears and believe your own new Lover of Truth dogma instead of the dogma of the catholic Church.
Quote from: MattoQuote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
"Tough luck dude when you invent strawmen and condemn yourself with them."
I did not say that you taught you don't need supernatural faith or the need to be in sanctifying grace to be saved. I was not erecting a strawman. It is clear you did not understand why I made that post. I considered your post to be blasphemous. It is better to avoid mockery when discussing sacred things. I know you say that you need to have supernatural faith to be saved, though you believe you can have that faith without being a believing Catholic. Similarly you have claimed that you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation while also believing that people can be saved without baptism and I also know that you add words to at least one of the sacred dogmas to give it a different meaning more pleasing to your ears and believe your own new Lover of Truth dogma instead of the dogma of the catholic Church.
Can you say why you wrote the post and what the intended meaning of it is rather than making false accusations in bad faith?
What was the purpose of your post? It seemed to merely be contradicting my point that the ignorant, malformed and or bad-willed are unable to make basic distinctions that prevent one from twisting dogma to their own condemnation by claiming a Catechumen goes to Hell because he did not get sacramentally baptized through no fault of his own.
Your problem is not with me but with the Catholic Church and ultimately God. I pray that the scales fall from your eyes or that you gain sense enough to stop foisting your errors on others. Ignorance is one thing, manifesting it all over the place is another.
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: MattoQuote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
"Tough luck dude when you invent strawmen and condemn yourself with them."
I did not say that you taught you don't need supernatural faith or the need to be in sanctifying grace to be saved. I was not erecting a strawman. It is clear you did not understand why I made that post. I considered your post to be blasphemous. It is better to avoid mockery when discussing sacred things. I know you say that you need to have supernatural faith to be saved, though you believe you can have that faith without being a believing Catholic. Similarly you have claimed that you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation while also believing that people can be saved without baptism and I also know that you add words to at least one of the sacred dogmas to give it a different meaning more pleasing to your ears and believe your own new Lover of Truth dogma instead of the dogma of the catholic Church.
Can you say why you wrote the post and what the intended meaning of it is rather than making false accusations in bad faith?
What was the purpose of your post? It seemed to merely be contradicting my point that the ignorant, malformed and or bad-willed are unable to make basic distinctions that prevent one from twisting dogma to their own condemnation by claiming a Catechumen goes to Hell because he did not get sacramentally baptized through no fault of his own.
Your problem is not with me but with the Catholic Church and ultimately God. I pray that the scales fall from your eyes or that you gain sense enough to stop foisting your errors on others. Ignorance is one thing, manifesting it all over the place is another.
You must have been one of them educated Novus Ordoites earlier in life because you still speak and write as one.
Don't you think you should take a vow of silence and refrain from all speaking and writing - except for confession that is.............but wait, you don't need to speak even then since you believe there is a confession of desire! What was I thinking. :facepalm:
Does the above blabbering refute the Catholic teaching that one can be saved by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost apart from water Mr. Palm Face? If so I must of missed it.
The HIDE option on CI is also an excellent tool, specially for a person like SJB, who never says anything worth hearing.
That there is No salvation Outside the Church is defined dogma and cannot be disputed.
That a Baptism of desire is possible and effective is clear in the example of
Quote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
So, you wrote this long article to tell us that sanctifying grace, God's grace teaching us EVERYTHING and at least the minimum truth we need to know to have supernatural faith, does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity, nor even an explicit desire to be a Catholic? In other words, you are saying that supernatural faith does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity.
I repeat: No Father, Doctor, Saint, nor the Council of Trent taught that, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and all of tradition.
Quote from: andysloanThat there is No salvation Outside the Church is defined dogma and cannot be disputed.
That a Baptism of desire is possible and effective is clear in the example of
What is this supernatural faith that saves without the sacrament of baptism composed of, a belief in what?
To Bowler
It is understood that baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, as I reasoned earlier, the good thief received the sacrament of baptism by desire or else how could Our Lord state:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Otherwise, you must explain how the good thief attained to salvation without water baptism.
I didn't see your answer LOV:Quote from: bowlerQuote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
So, you wrote this long article to tell us that sanctifying grace, God's grace teaching us EVERYTHING and at least the minimum truth we need to know to have supernatural faith, does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity, nor even an explicit desire to be a Catholic? In other words, you are saying that supernatural faith does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity.
I repeat: No Father, Doctor, Saint, nor the Council of Trent taught that, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and all of tradition.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Does the above blabbering refute the Catholic teaching that one can be saved by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost apart from water Mr. Palm Face? If so I must of missed it.
Well Mr. edumacted Novus Ordoite, learn the truth of the matter, the truth being that "the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one", iow, they are inseparable. Because they are one, "ya can't have one without the other".
Always remember that the three are inseparable. I know you cannot grasp that reality but that is why one cannot be saved by the spirit (a BOD i.e. faith alone) apart from water.
Both a BOD and a BOB are missing a key ingredient, water. OTOH, Water, without the desire to be baptized, is missing the spirit and the blood.
Since you've indoctrinated yourself into a position that leads you to despise the sacraments, to the point of it being like an obsession with you to trivialize them, sadly, I don't think you'll get the clue even when explained simple enough for a child to understand, but there it is. And it didn't take a theological essay to 'splain.
When are you going to take your own advice and refrain from speaking and writing?
Quote from: bowlerI didn't see your answer LOV:Quote from: bowlerQuote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
So, you wrote this long article to tell us that sanctifying grace, God's grace teaching us EVERYTHING and at least the minimum truth we need to know to have supernatural faith, does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity, nor even an explicit desire to be a Catholic? In other words, you are saying that supernatural faith does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity.
I repeat: No Father, Doctor, Saint, nor the Council of Trent taught that, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and all of tradition.
I've answered the question several times. I am not going to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result with you bowler.
"Baptism of Desire" is in clear contradiction to the concept of the Elect and Predestination (and predilection, a concept that I am currently studying). God, in His Infinite Omnipotence, will ensure that His elect WILL get baptized with water, just as Christ, Our Savior, instituted it and also that his elect come to the knowledge of the True faith and do not remain in state of ignorance.
Predestination to evil is clearly excluded in the first canon of Quierzy, but as far for predestination to eternal life, it is viewed as a grace, a special mercy as regards the elect whom God by His grace has predestined to life, and to eternal life. Again, as St Augustine puts it: "God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring His elect infallibly to eternal life."
Church teaching on predestination:
(a) The cause of predestination to grace is not the foreknowledge of naturally good works performed, nor is it due to any preliminary acts of the natural order that are supposed to prepare for salvation. (b) Predestination to glory is not due to foreseen supernatural merits that would continue to be effective apart from the special gift of final perseverance. (c) Complete predestination, which comprises the whole series of graces, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits. And St. Thomas understands this to mean that "whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination."(46) In a word: "that some are saved is the gift of Him who saves."(47)
(a) God wills in a certain way to save all men and He makes the fulfilment of His precepts possible for all; (b) There is no predestination to evil, but God has decreed from all eternity to inflict eternal punishment for the sin of final impenitence which He foresaw, He being by no means the cause of it but merely permitting it.
That there is an Elect is Church teaching but I don't think that there is an infallible dogma on how this Elect is chosen by God. It is my understanding that Catholics are free to support the Thomist view or the Molinist view on predestination. I am more of the Thomist view so far, but I have not recollected all my thoughts on it. If someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
G-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: MithrandylanG-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Myth, think about what you just said for a moment - "the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century" - if he was any good, he would most certainly at least be obscure, more likely slandered and known as a heretic of some sort.
"Well respected" theologians of the 20th century will have much to answer for thanks to the crisis; being the most respected theologian of the 20th century (Fenton also shares that "honor") is not a badge of honor, not by a long shot.
OK, replace "of" with "in" the 20th century if that makes you feel better.
G-L did not contribute to the crisis.
Having to defend him on a Catholic forum is lamentable.
Quote from: MithrandylanQuote from: StubbornQuote from: MithrandylanG-L is probably the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century, and an extremely pious and devout one at that.
If you want to know the Catholic faith, you can't do much better.
If you want to read something that will fit into pre-determined misconceptions, just read Bowler.
Myth, think about what you just said for a moment - "the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century" - if he was any good, he would most certainly at least be obscure, more likely slandered and known as a heretic of some sort.
"Well respected" theologians of the 20th century will have much to answer for thanks to the crisis; being the most respected theologian of the 20th century (Fenton also shares that "honor") is not a badge of honor, not by a long shot.
OK, replace "of" with "in" the 20th century if that makes you feel better.
G-L did not contribute to the crisis.
Having to defend him on a Catholic forum is lamentable.
That's a result of having these unorthodox creatures on a Catholic forum.
Quote from: StubbornAny 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. This just further indicates what many of us already know about you.
Quote from: bowlerQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Garrigou-Lagrange is a modern day, 20th century theologian, and a Heroin BODer. I don't recommend him, as he does not write clearly. When you are finished reading him you'll be even more confused than had you never read him.
Start by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 online at newadvent on Predestination. Then read what the Great Fathers of the Church had to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/a.htm
Oh Oh, I had no idea :surprised: . If he is a defender of BOD, then, I am already biased and has lost all credibility. Someone had recommended that book before. I guess I just stick to St. Augustine and St Thomas on the matter of Predestination then.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: bowlerQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Garrigou-Lagrange is a modern day, 20th century theologian, and a Heroin BODer. I don't recommend him, as he does not write clearly. When you are finished reading him you'll be even more confused than had you never read him.
Start by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 online at newadvent on Predestination. Then read what the Great Fathers of the Church had to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/a.htm
Oh Oh, I had no idea :surprised: . If he is a defender of BOD, then, I am already biased and has lost all credibility. Someone had recommended that book before. I guess I just stick to St. Augustine and St Thomas on the matter of Predestination then.
That's why I said G-L is a renown Thomist theologian. He understood St Thomas as well as anyone.
Why not make up your own mind? Plenty of G-L's works are available online in their entirety for free.
I'm not sure why Bowler is recommending the Catholic Encyclopedia. It has "heroin BOD."
Quote from: bowlerQuote from: andysloanThat there is No salvation Outside the Church is defined dogma and cannot be disputed.
That a Baptism of desire is possible and effective is clear in the example of
What is this supernatural faith that saves without the sacrament of baptism composed of, a belief in what?Quote from: andysloanTo Bowler
It is understood that baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, as I reasoned earlier, the good thief received the sacrament of baptism by desire or else how could Our Lord state:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Otherwise, you must explain how the good thief attained to salvation without water baptism.
The Good Thief received salvation the same way as Adam and Eve, who also were not baptized, and he ended up in the same place as Adam and Eve after he died.
Now answer my question: What is this supernatural faith that saves people TODAY without the sacrament of baptism composed of, a belief in what?
Bowler stated:
The Good Thief received salvation the same way as Adam and Eve,
The corollary of this is that baptism is not necessary for salvation, which refutes dogma. Christ said that the good thief would with be WITH HIM in paradise. Therefore, he must have received the effect of baptism through desire, being unable to receive it through water.
The question you pose about "supernatural faith without baptism", I assume is a reference to BOD and BOB. This has already been dealt with.
[/b]Quote from: StubbornQuote from: SJBQuote from: StubbornAny 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. This just further indicates what many of us already know about you.
No, no SJB, you just don't understand how we got into this crisis is all. If you will spend some time meditating on it, perhaps you will begin to understand how it all works and in time you will fully understand.
But for now, remember that if there was any hope of salvation outside the Catholic Church, Holy Mother would have never needed to teach infallibly at all - much less confuse everyone into thinking that when She declared that There is No salvation outside the Church REALLY meant there is salvation outside the Church.
This didn't get us into a crisis:
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres--bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized
*“Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A))
“Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. […] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized”)
Douay Catechism (by Henry Tuberville, D.D. 1649)
“Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
“A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.”
Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."
Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives
If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.
All you can claim is that NOBODY has understood Trent properly, but you and your simpleton cronies have.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John.
That there is No salvation Outside the Church is defined dogma and cannot be disputed.
That a Baptism of desire is possible and effective is clear in the example of the good thief:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
The receipt of the truths of the Catholic faith, follows commensurately with correspondence to grace in the interior will, such that it is subject to God and His laws.
John 7:16-17
"Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
Thus also does St Thomas state:
"In all who are in a state of grace, there must needs be rectitude of the will, since grace prepares man's will for good, according to Augustine (Contra Julian. Pelag. iv, 3). Now the will cannot be rightly directed to good, unless there be already some knowledge of the truth, since the object of the will is good understood, as stated in De Anima iii, 7. Again, just as the Holy Ghost directs man's will by the gift of charity, so as to move it directly to some supernatural good; so also, by the gift of understanding, He enlightens the human mind, so that it knows some supernatural truth, to which the right will needs to tend."
On the Gift of Understanding
Therefore, the good thief, after initially rejecting Christ (Matt 27:44) was converted during his crucifixion and was enlightened in mind to belief in Christ:
Luke 23:42
"And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom."
1 Corinthians 12:3
"And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost."
Therefore, if his understanding knew not all the doctrines of the Catholic faith, he had implicit acceptance through what we might call "mother truths", because God has so ordered that some doctrine is taught directly by the Holy Ghost and some by the Church/preachers.
1 Corinthians 2:13
"Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit"
Hebrews 6:1-2
"Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands..."
Thus failure of consent to Catholic doctrine by heretics and in its cause, is seen as follows:
1 Timothy 6:3-5
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth,"
Thus the good thief was saved because full consent in the will to God's will commensurates with full consent to Catholic doctrine.
Why providence gives some to be saved through a baptism of desire rather than through the orthodox channel of the church is a mystery of predestination, but is some wise ordering of our God of Whom it is written:
1 Timothy 2:4
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
It is understood that baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, as I reasoned earlier, the good thief received the sacrament of baptism by desire or else how could Our Lord state:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Otherwise, you must explain how the good thief attained to salvation without water baptism.
Quote from: bowlerThe HIDE option on CI is also an excellent tool, specially for a person like SJB, who never says anything worth hearing.
You seem to be responding to me anyway, don't you follow your own advice?
I'm sure the thing that bothers you is my requirement that you actually support what you are claiming. I don't know why you believe long unsupported arguments need long responses. They don't.
The matter for Baptism as given to us by Christ Himself is true and natural water. There is no Baptism of Desire.
Quote from: andysloan
It is understood that baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, as I reasoned earlier, the good thief received the sacrament of baptism by desire or else how could Our Lord state:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Otherwise, you must explain how the good thief attained to salvation without water baptism.
The good thief received salvation under the Old Law. Christ came to fulfill and replace the Old Law and institute a New Law for the salvation of humankind. This New Law is was fully established after Jesus's death. He said in the Cross, "it is finished". All the sacraments of the New Testament are instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church. That is why there is absolutely no means of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Baptism being the first of all. The matter for Baptism as given to us by Christ Himself is true and natural water. There is no Baptism of Desire.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: StubbornAny 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. This just further indicates what many of us already know about you.
Thanks to you SJB, I read the above comment from Stubborn which I would not have read on my own. Can I throw it back? Incredible!
Quote from: cantrellaThe matter for Baptism as given to us by Christ Himself is true and natural water. There is no Baptism of Desire.
The matter for the Sacrament is true and natural water. Nobody has denied this nor have they contradicted it.
To Bowler
Whilst baptism was obligatory after the resurrection of Christ, the sacrament was instituted when Christ Himself was baptized:
John 3:22
"After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized."
And St Thomas writes:
As stated above (Question 62, Article 1), sacraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. (Summa Theologica - On Baptism)
Thus the power of this sacrament, removal of all guilt and punishment, was given to the good thief in that he was promised paradise the same day as his death, else purgatory would have fallen to his lot, for want of penance.
This is further attested by St Thomas below. Also the veracity of the baptisms of desire and blood is proven, which deals with your re-iterated question.
As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
As stated above (Article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Bowler wrote: The sacrament of baptism was not necessary for salvation under the Old Covenant. The Good Thief and Adam and Eve, Abraham, Abel, Moses ect, were all in the same boat, they did not need to be baptized.
From The Catechism of Trent: Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection
The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
To Bowler
Whilst baptism was obligatory after the resurrection of Christ, the sacrament was instituted when Christ Himself was baptized:
John 3:22
"After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized."
And St Thomas writes:
What Bowler and Stubborn do not allow themselves to admit is that the Passion of Christ is what saves, yes, more so than water. But they insist, Augustine, Jerome, Thomas, Bernard, Ambrose, Trent, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, be damned that water alone saves much like the other Protestants teach faith alone. It's water alone man, can't you read John 3:5 as it is written unlike the above Catholic giants?
Quote from: Lover of Truth
What Bowler and Stubborn do not allow themselves to admit is that the Passion of Christ is what saves, yes, more so than water. But they insist, Augustine, Jerome, Thomas, Bernard, Ambrose, Trent, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, be damned that water alone saves much like the other Protestants teach faith alone. It's water alone man, can't you read John 3:5 as it is written unlike the above Catholic giants?
The sacrament of baptism was not made obligatory until Pentecost or sometime before the Ascension. St. Dismas was saved under the old dispensation and went to limbo ("paradise") when he died.
The thing LoT has against him is that, thanks in no small part to him clinging to his Novus Ordo past, he consistently confuses de fide declarations with heretical teaching and he has also demonstrated numerous times over that he despises the sacraments.
Keep those things in mind when reading his posts.
Now if he could only get himself to follow his own advise and either refrain from posting altogether or at least start 30 or 40 threads defending the sacraments instead of trivializing them, that would show he is trying to shake his NO lex credendi and he may actually learn something in the process.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: bowlerQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Garrigou-Lagrange is a modern day, 20th century theologian, and a Heroin BODer. I don't recommend him, as he does not write clearly. When you are finished reading him you'll be even more confused than had you never read him.
Start by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 online at newadvent on Predestination. Then read what the Great Fathers of the Church had to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/a.htm
Oh Oh, I had no idea :surprised: . If he is a defender of BOD, then, I am already biased and has lost all credibility. Someone had recommended that book before. I guess I just stick to St. Augustine and St Thomas on the matter of Predestination then.
But not on the matter of BOD?
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: bowlerQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: CantarellaIf someone has recommendations on the topic I will greatly appreciate it.
I just ordered the works of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Predestination. Can someone recommend more books / authors on it?
Garrigou-Lagrange is a modern day, 20th century theologian, and a Heroin BODer. I don't recommend him, as he does not write clearly. When you are finished reading him you'll be even more confused than had you never read him.
Start by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 online at newadvent on Predestination. Then read what the Great Fathers of the Church had to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/a.htm
Oh Oh, I had no idea :surprised: . If he is a defender of BOD, then, I am already biased and has lost all credibility. Someone had recommended that book before. I guess I just stick to St. Augustine and St Thomas on the matter of Predestination then.
But not on the matter of BOD?
No. Because as I said, a Catholic is free to adhere to any position on the matter of Predestination and how the Elect is chosen (thomist vs. molinist, of course, not Calvinist double predestination because it contradicts Church Doctrine). I do not want to undermine in any way the works of the great theologians, LoT. But they have merit as long as they do not contradict Infallible Church Dogma. And that is the problem with the Angelic Doctor and BoD, which I still have my doubts that in fact he did teach it and I am sure that he did not teach it the way modern BODers take it, which they have twisted it to the point of granting salvation for those outside the visible Church. A Catholic does commit a sin though when he holds beliefs CONTRARY to what the Church has always taught, as in the case of BOD.
Catholics must believe and profess the dogma of the necessity of water Baptism for salvation, optional to no soul, regardless of how "cruel" and "unjust" this may sound in our present time of sentimentalism, apostasy and false ecuмenism. All who adhere to Ecuмenism and Universal Salvation oppose the True Religion.
Council of Verona (1184), Pope Lucius III Ad Abolendum:
All who do not fear to think or teach otherwise that the most holy Roman Church teaches and observes regarding Baptism or the other ecclesiastical sacraments...we bind with a bond of perpetual anathema.
That there is an Elect is Church teaching and that no one is predestined to hell as well, but there is not an infallible dogma on how this Elect is chosen. In supporting a view on how this happens, I am free to read whoever authority I please, and so I will, as long as I adhere to what the Church has always taught.
I'm not sure how in your own mind you can reconcile that the Church giants understand John 3:5 and Trent better than you and interpret both different than you do and how they are wrong and you are right.
Did you know Feeneyism is an American heresy. It was not heard of until recently and inside the country only. Everyone understood that non-members could be saved within the Church. They taught it in confusing ways sometimes but they were not dealing with Feeneyites then. One good thing the Feeneyites through the 50's did was force the Church to clarify the issue and she did. We have no right to reject her authoritative docuмents such as, Mystici corporis, Suprema haec sacra and Humani generis. To do so is to play with fire.
Carefully and unbiasedly study or restudy the above three docuмents before you publicly speak on the issue.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I'm not sure how in your own mind you can reconcile that the Church giants understand John 3:5 and Trent better than you and interpret both different than you do and how they are wrong and you are right.
Did you know Feeneyism is an American heresy. It was not heard of until recently and inside the country only. Everyone understood that non-members could be saved within the Church. They taught it in confusing ways sometimes but they were not dealing with Feeneyites then. One good thing the Feeneyites through the 50's did was force the Church to clarify the issue and she did. We have no right to reject her authoritative docuмents such as, Mystici corporis, Suprema haec sacra and Humani generis. To do so is to play with fire.
Carefully and unbiasedly study or restudy the above three docuмents before you publicly speak on the issue.
Amazing what a life time of being a Novus Ordoite can do to people to make them think this way.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Lover of Truth
I'm not sure how in your own mind you can reconcile that the Church giants understand John 3:5 and Trent better than you and interpret both different than you do and how they are wrong and you are right.
Did you know Feeneyism is an American heresy. It was not heard of until recently and inside the country only. Everyone understood that non-members could be saved within the Church. They taught it in confusing ways sometimes but they were not dealing with Feeneyites then. One good thing the Feeneyites through the 50's did was force the Church to clarify the issue and she did. We have no right to reject her authoritative docuмents such as, Mystici corporis, Suprema haec sacra and Humani generis. To do so is to play with fire.
Carefully and unbiasedly study or restudy the above three docuмents before you publicly speak on the issue.
Amazing what a life time of being a Novus Ordoite can do to people to make them think this way.
Did you just refute the Catholic teach on BOD or make another strange unrelated comment?
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: StubbornQuote from: Lover of Truth
I'm not sure how in your own mind you can reconcile that the Church giants understand John 3:5 and Trent better than you and interpret both different than you do and how they are wrong and you are right.
Did you know Feeneyism is an American heresy. It was not heard of until recently and inside the country only. Everyone understood that non-members could be saved within the Church. They taught it in confusing ways sometimes but they were not dealing with Feeneyites then. One good thing the Feeneyites through the 50's did was force the Church to clarify the issue and she did. We have no right to reject her authoritative docuмents such as, Mystici corporis, Suprema haec sacra and Humani generis. To do so is to play with fire.
Carefully and unbiasedly study or restudy the above three docuмents before you publicly speak on the issue.
Amazing what a life time of being a Novus Ordoite can do to people to make them think this way.
Did you just refute the Catholic teach on BOD or make another strange unrelated comment?
No, I refuted the modernist NO teach on a BOD. You will never snap out of your despising of the sacraments if you continue with the NO and prot thinking of salvation through faith alone.
Why not start some threads defending the necessity of the sacraments, you know, start some Catholic threads for a change.
To Stubborn:
Dismah did not go to limbo, because otherwise Christ would not have said the following:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Christ is not in limbo, but in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father.
To bowler:
You say I quote "my interpretation" of St Thomas. What he said requires no interpretation; it is quite plain:
As stated above (Article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
To Stubborn:
Dismah did not go to limbo, because otherwise Christ would not have said the following:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Christ is not in limbo, but in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father.
Quote from: andysloanTo Stubborn:
Dismah did not go to limbo, because otherwise Christ would not have said the following:
Luke 23:43
"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Christ is not in limbo, but in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father.
If you pray the Apostles Creed when you pray the Rosary, you should know that we profess our belief that Christ descended into hell ("paradise") as we say: ".......suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven....."
The name of "the good thief" was St. Dismas; who on that day, was with our Lord as Our Lord said he would be, in hell, ("paradise") where all the Just souls of the Old Testament went when they died and remained until Our Lord's Ascension into heaven.
The Fathers are unsure exactly when the sacrament of baptism was instituted, but they all agree that if it wasn't at Pentecost, it was sometime between Pentecost and the Ascension - either way, the sacrament was not a necessity at the time of the Crucifixion, as such, St. Dismas died under the Old Dispensation same as all the saints of the Old Testament.
Just fyi.
As limbo is in hell (the upper parts), where the souls of the just were denied the beatific vision, how can this place possibly equate to what would commonly be termed paradise...
To stubborn:
Could you please advise an authority that equates paradise with limbo. As limbo is in hell (the upper parts), where the souls of the just were denied the beatific vision, how can this place possibly equate to what would commonly be termed paradise:
Why He Descended into Hell
To Liberate The Just
Having explained these things, the pastor should next proceed to teach that Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that having despoiled the demons, He might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls, and might bring them into heaven with Himself. This He accomplished in an admirable and most glorious manner; for His august presence at once shed a celestial lustre upon the captives and filled them with inconceivable joy and delight. He also imparted to them that supreme happiness which consists in the vision of God, thus verifying His promise to the thief on the cross: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
This deliverance of the just was long before predicted by Osee in these words: O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite; ' and also by the Prophet Zachary: Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water; and lastly, the same is expressed by the Apostle in these words: Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.
But the better to understand the efficacy of this mystery we should frequently call to mind that not only the just who were born after the coming of our Lord, but also those who preceded Him from the days of Adam, or who shall be born until the end of time, obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion. Wherefore before His death and Resurrection heaven was closed against every child of Adam. The souls of the just, on their departure from this life, were either borne to the bosom of Abraham; or, as is still the case with those who have something to be washed away or satisfied for, were purified in the fire of purgatory.
Supplementary information regarding the actions of Christ post death, as given to Venerable Mary of Agreda:
http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_06_Chapter_10.htm
http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_06_Chapter_11.htm
To Bowler,
. As you can read, Venerable Mary records:
Thus on that day of the presence of the King were depopulated the prisonhouses of both limbo and purgatory.
The authority of Scripture suffices:
.
THE TRUE SENSE OF THE VINCENTIAN CANON
By Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin S.J. (1816-1886)
Thesis concerning the true sense of the Vincentian Canon.
1. The Canon [or theological rule] of Saint Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium Chapters 2, 4, 27 and 29) which assigns universality, antiquity and consensus of faith as characteristics of Catholic doctrine is perfectly true in the affirmative sense. In other words, a doctrine bearing these marks is certainly a dogma of the Catholic faith. It is not however true in the exclusive sense, i.e. if it be understood to mean that nothing can belong to the Catholic faith which has not been explicitly believed always, everywhere and by all.
2. In the context of the Commonitorium itself, the purport of the rule is simply to state two marks, either of which is sufficient to prove the absolute antiquity, or apostolicity, of a doctrine, viz : (a) the present consensus of the Church, and (b) the consensus of relative antiquity, i.e. as it stood before the controversy arose.
I
The Canon in question is stated by Saint Vincent of Lerins in the following terms: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic... This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity and consensus.” (Chapter 2) Note first that the reference is not to any points whatsoever that are held and observed in the Church irrespective of the way in which they held. It is to those which are believed, i.e. held by faith. Now a thing can be believed in either of two ways: explicitly, or only implicitly. Whatever is contained in the deposit of objective revelation has certainly been believed at least implicitly everywhere, always and by all Catholics and nothing can be contained in the deposit of revelation which is not so believed. One would at once cease to be a Catholic if one were not ready to believe everything which has been sufficiently proposed to one as divinely revealed—or if one’s habit of faith did not extend to the assent to be accorded to everything included in revelation. But in this sense “to have been believed always and everywhere” cannot be given as a criterion and theological touchstone for recognising what is contained in revelation, for the objects of implicit faith are not in themselves known as revealed. And on the other hand, to investigate whether something has been at least implicitly believed everywhere, always, by all, is the same thing as investigating whether it is contained in objective revelation and Tradition; and it must therefore be established in the light of some other criterion—it cannot be itself a means of establishing it. So although it is true, both in the affirmative sense and in the exclusive sense, that everything belongs to the deposit of faith which has been at least implicitly believed everywhere, always, and by all, and that nothing belongs to this deposit which has not been so believed, nevertheless this cannot be the meaning of the Vincentian Canon.
It follows that the proposed criterion can only be understood of explicit faith. Now it has been established in the preceding theses that a universal consensus in recognising some dogma as a doctrine of faith, at whatever period this consensus may exist, is a definite criterion of divinely transmitted doctrine.93 There is therefore no doubt that such an agreement or consensus in antiquity proves divine Tradition, and that the consensus of all ages does so most splendidly.94 So whatever has been believed always, everywhere and by all, cannot but have been revealed and divinely transmitted.
However it has been no less established in the foregoing that certain points of doctrine can be contained in the deposit of objective revelation which were not always contained in the manifest and explicit preaching of the Church, and that for as long as they were not sufficiently proposed it was possible for them to be the object of controversy within the limits of the Church without loss of faith and communion.95 So a given point of doctrine can be contained in objective revelation and can also, with the passage of time—when it has been sufficiently explained and proposed—come to belong to those truths which must necessarily be believed with Catholic faith, while yet this truth, though always contained in the deposit of revelation, has not been explicitly believed always, everywhere and by all; nor was there any necessity that it should be so believed. So although the marks listed in the Canon, if present, constitute manifest proof that the doctrine they relate to is a dogma of the Catholic faith, their absence by no means necessarily proves that a given doctrine was not contained in the deposit of faith; neither does it prove that a doctrine, which, for want of sufficient proposition at a given time, did not need to be explicitly believed, may not at some other time be the object of obligatory belief. So the Canon is true in the affirmative sense, but cannot be admitted in the negative and exclusive sense.
II
If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:
a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.
b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.
by either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecuмenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers.
Finally, if, in some polemical altercation, the heretics were to go so far as not even to venerate the authority of the preceding Fathers, he admits that we have no remaining common principle between them and us save the authority of Scripture. That the foregoing interpretation is the true one is clear from the entire context of Saint Vincent’s Commonitorium.
a) He says that one must hold “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all,” without distinguishing whether it was so believed implicitly or explicitly (Chapter 2). But then he indicates marks by which we can come to know whether something was thus believed everywhere, always and by all, and these marks are: universality, antiquity and consensus. “This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus.” Hence, “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all” is not itself a criterion [of the duty to believe] but is rather something to be established by means of distinct criteria, namely universality, antiquity and consensus.
b) What Vincent means by universality he explains straight away: “We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses.” Hence universality is the agreement of the entire Church, and, insofar as it is distinct from the mark of antiquity, it is the consent of the Church at this present time when the controversy has arisen. This is manifest from Chapter 3 in which Vincent contrasts universality, as the present consensus, which can be troubled by newly invented errors, with antiquity, i.e. the agreement of the previous age “which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty”. Moreover in the Chapter 29 he says that universal consent is to be followed “lest we...be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism,” which he illustrates in Chapter 4 by the example of the Catholics in Africa, who “detesting the profane schism [of Donatus], continued in communion with all the churches of the world [which were at that time in agreement].”
c) The mark of antiquity is understood by Vincent in the sense of relative antiquity, whereby absolute antiquity or apostolicity is to be inferred: this is clear from his entire manner of reasoning. For he invariably situates antiquity in the judgement of preceding Fathers or Councils—a judgement existing before the appearance of the heresy to be refuted or the controversy to be decided. “In antiquity itself..., to the temerity of one or of a very few, they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters.” (Chapter 27)97 And in Chapter 28 he says that to ancient heresies one should oppose councils which took place before those heresies arose, while, if even these councils are condemned by the heretics, there remains only the common source of Scripture to use in argument against them.
d) Finally, Saint Vincent of Lerins everywhere clearly teaches that either one of these two marks—i.e. universal consent and the agreement of antiquity—suffices to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine. Thus in Chapter 3 he writes : i) “What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” Here universal consent is opposed to local error. ii) “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity.” Here antiquity is appealed to in the event that contemporary controversies should have muddied the waters and made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church. There can therefore be no doubt that the true sense of the Vincentian Canon is the sense explained in our thesis. Any doctrine which is supported by neither of these two marks must be considered as being, at best, not yet sufficiently proposed to Catholic faith; and a doctrine which is repugnant to either mark must be considered to be a profane novelty.
Publishers’ Note. The foregoing text appears as Thesis XXIV in Franzelin’s masterpiece De Divina Traditione et Scriptura (Rome, 1875).
Footnotes:
93 See Theses V, n. iii ; VIII, nn. I, ii ; Corollary I to Thesis IX; Thesis XI, n. ii.
94 See Theses XIV, XV.
95 See Corollary ii to Thesis IX and Thesis XXIII.
96 Vincent’s apparently tripartite division in certain chapters : universitas, antiquitas, consensio, in fact contains not three but only two truly distinct parts, as is apparent from the author’s own explanation., and in Chapter 29 (i.e. the Recapitulation which is all that survives of the second Commonitorium), he himself reduces the three to two: “Regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity.”
97 There are no grounds for seeing in this or other passages from Saint Vincent of Lerins an error against the infallible authority of the definitions of the Roman Pontiff. Saint Vincent’s intention is to set out criteria of doctrinal apostolicity not only for the benefit of Catholics, but also for polemical use against the novelties of heretics—criteria which no one shall be able to refuse.
a) He offers these criteria against “only...those heresies which are new and recent, and that on their first arising.” (Chapter 28) So, given his supposition that no direct judgement has yet been made against them, he could not fittingly appeal to a papal definition either.
b) The criteria which he adduces are entirely true. His choice of them does not imply that he denies and excludes other criteria that may be applicable according to circuмstances.
c) In the criteria which he sets forth, the authentic judgement of the Apostolic See is at least implicitly included. For when such a judgement exists, either it authentically declares the antiquity of the consensus, or else it most certainly brings about universality. Hence if there is an extant pontifical definition promulgated in antiquity...it will always be possible to appeal to “the consentient belief of many and great masters” (Chapter 27).
d) For Vincent of Lerins, as for Irenæus before him, it is enough to appeal to the authority of the Apostolic See in order to establish the apostolicity of a doctrine. He makes this quite clear in Chapter 6: “It has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number : but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to everyone with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed Apostles [i.e. the Roman Pontiffs] have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.” He then recounts the innovation of the re-baptisers from Agrippinus of Carthage, before pursuing in the following terms : “When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his position [“loci auctoritate superabat”], so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation—nothing but what has been handed down... What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.”
Those who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted.
Quote from: LadislausThose who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted.
They all reduce the Dogma to a meaningless formula.
Quote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausThose who undermine the Church's dogma like SJB, LoT, and Ambrose will not be converted.
They all reduce the Dogma to a meaningless formula.
Just place SJB, LoT, and Ambrose on HIDE mode and you are rid of their static.
It just seems like nothing new is being said; they keep quoting St. Alphonsus and a handful of modernist theologians, while we keep making the same points from the Fathers, Tradition, and the Church Councils.
Quote from: LadislausIt just seems like nothing new is being said; they keep quoting St. Alphonsus and a handful of modernist theologians, while we keep making the same points from the Fathers, Tradition, and the Church Councils.
Which modernist theologians are they quoting?
“Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.” (Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)
Is it any wonder the Modernists left him alone?
Quote from: StubbornIs it any wonder the Modernists left him alone?
A few fact to enter into your little head:
Garrigou-Lagrange died in 1964.
He was not among the modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: StubbornIs it any wonder the Modernists left him alone?
A few fact to enter into your little head:
Garrigou-Lagrange died in 1964.
He was not among the modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII.
So, what's that supposed to mean?
Earlier I said that G-L and all "well respected" 20th century theologians, including Fenton, should automatically be suspect of helping lay the ground work for the current crisis - and I told you why, but as usual, none of the BODers here agreed - even thought it was a bad thing to make the accusation - well, now, if you read what is written, you can see with your own eyes he was teaching Universal Salvation - and to this day is "well respected" for that very reason.
According to Wikipedia:
He is best known for his spiritual theology. His magnum opus in the field is The Three Ages of the Interior Life, in which he propounded the thesis that infused contemplation and the resulting mystical life are in the normal way of holiness of Christian perfection. This influenced the section entitled "Chapter V: The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church" in the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.
Quote from: StubbornAny 20th century theologian who is well respected should be suspected of being a part of the problem. If he would have been part of the solution he would have most assuredly been anything except well respected. That's the way the modernists work. And that doesn't mean G-L did not teach the truth, it only means he compromised it enough to not get slandered into oblivion.
What a stupid and ignorant comment. This just further indicates what many of us already know about you.
“When we speak of men exclusively, we do not know, first of all, if among the worlds scattered in space the earth is the only one that is habitable. But if we restrict our question to men on our planet, the number of the elect remains a matter of controversy. …Many Fathers and theologians incline to the smaller number of the elect, because it is said in Scripture: ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ Again: ‘Enter you in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction; and many there are who go in thereat; how narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life and few there are that find it.’ Still, these texts are not absolutely demonstrative. Thus, following many others, Pere Monsabre remarks: ‘If these words were intended for all places and for all times, then the opinion of the small number of the elect would triumph. But we are permitted to think that they are meant, directly, for the ungrateful time of our Savior’s own preaching. When Jesus wishes us to think of the future, He speaks in another manner. Thus He says to His disciples: ‘If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to Myself.’ …The common opinion of the Fathers and ancient theologians is without doubt that those who are saved do not represent the greater number. We may cite in favor of this view the following saints: Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory nαzιanzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas. Then, nearer to our own times: Molina, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, and St. Alphonsus. But they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion. In the last century the contrary opinion, namely, of the greater number of the elect, was defended… Restricting the question to Catholics, we find the doctrine, generally held especially since Suarez, that, if we consider merely adults, the number of the elect surpasses that of the reprobate. If adult Catholics do at one time or another sin mortally, nevertheless they can arise in the tribunal of penance, and there are relatively few who at the end of life do not repent, or even refuse to receive the sacraments.” (Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)
Could it be as Ladislaus said; that SJB is a BOD troll? Look at his posting history, hundreds of one sentence postings with no content.
I'd suggest that one be careful not to loose too much time responding to his postings, and instead take the lead and post informative educational material of your choosing. Let him follow, and ignore his static, or use it as an opportunity to post good material, however, always taking the lead.
For me, he rarely says anything of value, it's not worth my time sifting through his inane static to find something once in a while. I just put him on HIDE. Same goes for Lover of Truth, except he is the opposite of SJB in that he posts volumes! Out of sight is out of mind.
That there is No salvation Outside the Church is defined dogma and cannot be disputed.
That a Baptism of desire is possible and effective is clear in the example of the good thief:"
To the Heroin BODer, EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree below does not mean what they say. (remember that a Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic.)
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 Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
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.”
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.”
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…”[/color]
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.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Council of Trent, Session VI 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).
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;
(Just in case anyone wants to refute what that quote above means, I quote below the same thing said at the Council of Florence:)
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.”
---------------------------------
The following quotations from many Popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. These teachings of the Popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“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.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
[
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
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.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Quote from: andysloanThat there is No salvation Outside the Church is defined dogma and cannot be disputed.
That a Baptism of desire is possible and effective is clear in the example of the good thief:"
See http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29318&min=0&num=5Quote from: bowlerTo the Heroin BODer, EVERY SINGLE clear dogmatic decree below does not mean what it says. (remember that a Heroin BODer believes that someone can be saved who has no belief in Christ and the Trinity, nor has any explicit desire to be baptized, or to be a Catholic.)
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 Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
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.”
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.”
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…”[/color]
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.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Council of Trent, Session VI 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).
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;
(Just in case anyone wants to refute what that quote above means, I quote below the same thing said at the Council of Florence:)
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.”
---------------------------------
The following quotations from many Popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. These teachings of the Popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“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.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”
[
Quote from: Catechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
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.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
The rather oddly formatted Fordham online copy is the same here as the TAN reprint from 1982.
I'm going to suggest to Matthew that all members on CI have to post their age and gender.
These SJB and Lover of Truth could be 20 year olds writing from their parents computer from the basement in their underwear. This SJB last night when I looked at the CI Church in Crisis section had the last posting in 9 BOD threads! Post anything on a BOD thread and he posts a sentence within seconds.
I have him on hide, so I don't read what he posts. But every time I checked before it was a sentence.
Quote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
So, you wrote this long article to tell us that sanctifying grace, God's grace, his wisdom internally speaking to us, teaching us, EVERYTHING and at least the minimum truth we need to know to have supernatural faith, does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity, nor even an explicit desire to be a Catholic? In other words, you are saying that supernatural faith does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity.
I repeat: No Father, Doctor, Saint, nor the Council of Trent taught that, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and all of tradition.
This quote by LOT and my response was on the first pages of this thread:Quote from: bowlerQuote from: Lover of TruthWas I teaching somewhere that you don't need supernatural faith and to be in a state of sanctifying grace in order for salvation to be possible?
So, you wrote this long article to tell us that sanctifying grace, God's grace, his wisdom internally speaking to us, teaching us, EVERYTHING and at least the minimum truth we need to know to have supernatural faith, does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity, nor even an explicit desire to be a Catholic? In other words, you are saying that supernatural faith does not include an explicit belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Trinity.
I repeat: No Father, Doctor, Saint, nor the Council of Trent taught that, and it is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and all of tradition.
Let me add that LOT is also saying that the Holy Ghost (sanctifying grace) dwells in this soul that is not baptized, has no explicit desire to be baptized, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Is this insanity or what?
I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Quote from: bowlerI'm going to suggest to Matthew that all members on CI have to post their age and gender.
These SJB and Lover of Truth could be 20 year olds writing from their parents computer from the basement in their underwear. This SJB last night when I looked at the CI Church in Crisis section had the last posting in 9 BOD threads! Post anything on a BOD thread and he posts a sentence within seconds.
I have him on hide, so I don't read what he posts. But every time I checked before it was a sentence.
It doesn't take much to respond to your stupid repetitive Dimond Bro style posts.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: bowlerI'm going to suggest to Matthew that all members on CI have to post their age and gender.
These SJB and Lover of Truth could be 20 year olds writing from their parents computer from the basement in their underwear. This SJB last night when I looked at the CI Church in Crisis section had the last posting in 9 BOD threads! Post anything on a BOD thread and he posts a sentence within seconds.
I have him on hide, so I don't read what he posts. But every time I checked before it was a sentence.
It doesn't take much to respond to your stupid repetitive Dimond Bro style posts.
You are right, it doesn't take much. The Saint Benedict Center/Dimond Brothers/Ibranyites all have one common theme, an arrogance towards the Popes, Doctors and theologians. They all pretend that they understand theology better than the experts, even though they can't even make basic distinctions.
Theology is not for everyone. These people should stick to the Baltimore Catechism, simple and easy to follow.....Oh, wait, they know more than the catechism too!
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: SJBQuote from: bowlerI'm going to suggest to Matthew that all members on CI have to post their age and gender.
These SJB and Lover of Truth could be 20 year olds writing from their parents computer from the basement in their underwear. This SJB last night when I looked at the CI Church in Crisis section had the last posting in 9 BOD threads! Post anything on a BOD thread and he posts a sentence within seconds.
I have him on hide, so I don't read what he posts. But every time I checked before it was a sentence.
It doesn't take much to respond to your stupid repetitive Dimond Bro style posts.
You are right, it doesn't take much. The Saint Benedict Center/Dimond Brothers/Ibranyites all have one common theme, an arrogance towards the Popes, Doctors and theologians. They all pretend that they understand theology better than the experts, even though they can't even make basic distinctions.
Theology is not for everyone. These people should stick to the Baltimore Catechism, simple and easy to follow.....Oh, wait, they know more than the catechism too!
This is funny coming from you, who thinks the Church must submit to the teachings of her subjects.
Stubborn,
Who approves the catechisms of the Church? Who commissions the theologians to explain the truth of the Faith and approves their writings?
I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I know that the Church teaches that such a person must believe, at very least, that there is a God and this must be a supernatural belief based upon Divine Revelation and that this God rewards good and punishes evil. I also know that the majority view of those qualified to teach on the subject is that there must also be a belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity but it is not conclusive, it has not been definitively settled, one way or the other, that these last two are absolutely necessary for one to have supernatural Faith, perfect charity and sanctifying grace.
I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
I know that the Church teaches that such a person must believe, at very least, that there is a God and this must be a supernatural belief based upon Divine Revelation and that this God rewards good and punishes evil.
I also know that the majority view of those qualified to teach on the subject is that there must also be a belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity but it is not conclusive, it has not been definitively settled, one way or the other, that these last two are absolutely necessary for one to have supernatural Faith, perfect charity and sanctifying grace. I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
Quote from: Ambrose
Stubborn,
Who approves the catechisms of the Church? Who commissions the theologians to explain the truth of the Faith and approves their writings?
You skirt the issue since you reject the direct magisterial teachings on the necessity of the sacraments.
The only question you need to answer is: do you believe the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and that without them man cannot be justified? (the answers are below)
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As I said to LoT a few posts ago in this thread, I have proven that like him, you do not believe what the Church teaches because you consistently reject the above infallible teaching of the Church.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I know that the Church teaches that such a person must believe, at very least, that there is a God and this must be a supernatural belief based upon Divine Revelation and that this God rewards good and punishes evil. I also know that the majority view of those qualified to teach on the subject is that there must also be a belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity but it is not conclusive, it has not been definitively settled, one way or the other, that these last two are absolutely necessary for one to have supernatural Faith, perfect charity and sanctifying grace.
I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
Practically "everyone" believes that there is a God, LoT :rolleyes:. That does not mean that they are adoring the Only True God or that they think they have any responsibility towards HIM, and even less so, that they will save their souls in their religions. There are pagans and those in false religions that rather worship creatures rather than the Creator. They know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe and they still persist in adoring them. Every such person knows that he is worshipping a creature rather than the Creator. Even the ones that believe that are worshipping the Creator, are forgetting an INDISPENSABLE part and is the belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ, the ONLY SAVIOR of humanity. They are, as St. Paul says, without excuse.
St. Augustine explains this well in reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without baptism. “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
And if somebody accepted the truth, if he were intellectually honest enough to say, “God, reveal Yourself to me,” and if God found in such soul a good will and the right disposition, then God would send an angel, if necessary, as He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10; and He would follow it up with a missionary who would bring the good news and the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Thomas says that if the if the invisible ignorant do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that He will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”
John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
It is the BODers who change the meaning of the words of the Canon. Those who reject BOD do so because they believe what it actually says. They do not give it a perverse interpretation but believe what it actually says clearly.
Quote from: Ambrose
I believe every word of the Canon, just not your perverse interpretation of it.[/quote
It is the BODers who change the meaning of the words of the Canon. Those who reject BOD do so because they believe what it actually says. They do not give it a perverse interpretation but believe what it actually says clearly.
Matto,
Do you believe this Canon is teaching against Baptism of Desire and Blood?
I believe that it teaches that the Sacraments instituted by Christ are necessary for salvation.
If BOB and BOD saved people, then it would mean that it is possible to be saved without the sacraments and then this teaching of the Church would be a lie.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: Lover of Truth
I know that the Church teaches that such a person must believe, at very least, that there is a God and this must be a supernatural belief based upon Divine Revelation and that this God rewards good and punishes evil. I also know that the majority view of those qualified to teach on the subject is that there must also be a belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity but it is not conclusive, it has not been definitively settled, one way or the other, that these last two are absolutely necessary for one to have supernatural Faith, perfect charity and sanctifying grace.
I only teach what has been taught within the Church. If the Church allows for debate on the issue I allow for it.
Practically "everyone" believes that there is a God, LoT :rolleyes:. That does not mean that they are adoring the Only True God or that they think they have any responsibility towards HIM, and even less so, that they will save their souls in their religions. There are pagans and those in false religions that rather worship creatures rather than the Creator. They know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe and they still persist in adoring them. Every such person knows that he is worshipping a creature rather than the Creator. Even the ones that believe that are worshipping the Creator, are forgetting an INDISPENSABLE part and is the belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ, the ONLY SAVIOR of humanity. They are, as St. Paul says, without excuse.
St. Augustine explains this well in reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without baptism. “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”
And if somebody accepted the truth, if he were intellectually honest enough to say, “God, reveal Yourself to me,” and if God found in such soul a good will and the right disposition, then God would send an angel, if necessary, as He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10; and He would follow it up with a missionary who would bring the good news and the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Thomas says that if the if the invisible ignorant do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that He will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”
John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
AGAIN, that is not all that is required. It must be a supernatural faith accompanied by perfect charity. These people, for salvation to be possible must truly will to do God's will and not be culpably ignorant of what His will is. The must love God with the love of charity preferring to suffer rather than sin.
This is far different than "believing in God" with a token lip service and being saved by that.
But this is obvious to those who actually read what the Church teaches. Those against the Church teaching on BOD try to make the must liberal interpretation of BOD and knock that down. In the objective realm it is intellectually dishonest to misrepresent BOD and use that misrepresentation as a bases to promote the error/heresy of Feeneyism.
This is what Stubborn does. He says "Wow you believe people who do not even believe in the Incarnation or Holy Trinity can be saved!!!!!"
But he acts as if that the Church teaches that is all that is necessary for salvation to be secured. I hope the good-willed can see through the facade of inventing straw-men and knocking them down.
If you want to undermine the Catholic teaching of BOD at least have the intellectual honesty to represent the teaching accurately.
Correct me if I am wrong. I will do what I ask you to do and represent your belief accurately. A teaching which the Church smashes to smithereens as has been proved over and over again on this site. You teach that:
No one can be saved apart from water.
Correct me if I am wrong. Do you or do you not believe one must be baptized with water in order to be saved?
I accurately represent what you teach. Can you pay the same respect to those who present the Church's teaching on BOD. Get the requisites necessary for BOD or right or avoid speaking on the issue.
You should ask Ladislaus if Trent taught BOD. He knows more than me and is good at explaining how Trent did not teach BOD. If you seek an argument, go ask him.
In several occasions the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church has positively declared that no one has the power to innovate anything whatsoever regarding the substance of the Sacraments (substance meaning matter (in this case, natural WATER, and form (words, as expressed in John 3:5).
Pope ST Pius X: "It is well known that the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching the substance of the Sacraments". Thus even the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words or matter in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Pius XII: " As the Council of Trent teaches the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments".
I am not seeking an argument with you, I am trying to convince you to reject heresy. Do you trust Ladislaus' opinion on Trent over St. Alphonus and other theologians who all say that Trent taught Baptism of Desire?
A Catholic is required to believe the Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not allowed to reject even one point. This is why I am telling you this, i care enough about your soul to warn you to avoid heresy.
Quote from: Ambrose
I am not seeking an argument with you, I am trying to convince you to reject heresy. Do you trust Ladislaus' opinion on Trent over St. Alphonus and other theologians who all say that Trent taught Baptism of Desire?
A Catholic is required to believe the Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not allowed to reject even one point. This is why I am telling you this, i care enough about your soul to warn you to avoid heresy.
From all I have read and seen I believe my position is correct because to accept baptism of Desire I would have to believe in contradictions and believe that the Church erred when infallibly defining dogma. The Church declared infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation and you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy. The Church declared infallibly that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and again you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy.
:applause:
Quote from: MattoQuote from: Ambrose
I am not seeking an argument with you, I am trying to convince you to reject heresy. Do you trust Ladislaus' opinion on Trent over St. Alphonus and other theologians who all say that Trent taught Baptism of Desire?
A Catholic is required to believe the Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not allowed to reject even one point. This is why I am telling you this, i care enough about your soul to warn you to avoid heresy.
From all I have read and seen I believe my position is correct because to accept baptism of Desire I would have to believe in contradictions and believe that the Church erred when infallibly defining dogma. The Church declared infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation and you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy. The Church declared infallibly that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and again you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy.
:applause:
No one who is aware of the Church's necessity of baptism, but is guilty of refusing to get baptized will be saved.
Of course if they are not aware, through no fault of their own, they are not damned for that reason. This is because God is not an arbitrary tyrant that damns the innocent.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Ambrose
Stubborn,
Who approves the catechisms of the Church? Who commissions the theologians to explain the truth of the Faith and approves their writings?
You skirt the issue since you reject the direct magisterial teachings on the necessity of the sacraments.
The only question you need to answer is: do you believe the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and that without them man cannot be justified? (the answers are below)
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As I said to LoT a few posts ago in this thread, I have proven that like him, you do not believe what the Church teaches because you consistently reject the above infallible teaching of the Church.
I believe every word of the Canon, just not your perverse interpretation of it.
Quote from: MattoI believe that it teaches that the Sacraments instituted by Christ are necessary for salvation.
If BOB and BOD saved people, then it would mean that it is possible to be saved without the sacraments and then this teaching of the Church would be a lie.
Baptism of Desire and Blood achieve the effects of the sacrament (except for the mark). The desire to receive them suffices.
The Canon must be understood as the Church understands it, not a mid 20th century group from Boston.
SJB and I have asked Stubborn many times over to provide an authority who interprets Trent the way he does, and he keeps dodging.
The reason why is that this idea that Trent taught against Baptism of Desire in these Canons is a perversion of doctrine. Whenever Trent is cited in relation to Baptism of Desire, all authorities cite it as teaching Baptism of Desire.
Since the Council of Trent, it is a heresy to deny Baptism of Desire. You must believe it, or you risk losing your membership in the Church, therefore your salvation.
Quote from: Ambrose
I am not seeking an argument with you, I am trying to convince you to reject heresy. Do you trust Ladislaus' opinion on Trent over St. Alphonus and other theologians who all say that Trent taught Baptism of Desire?
A Catholic is required to believe the Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not allowed to reject even one point. This is why I am telling you this, i care enough about your soul to warn you to avoid heresy.
From all I have read and seen I believe my position is correct because to accept baptism of Desire I would have to believe in contradictions and believe that the Church erred when infallibly defining dogma. The Church declared infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation and you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy. The Church declared infallibly that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and again you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy.
:applause:
Quote from: MattoQuote from: Ambrose
I am not seeking an argument with you, I am trying to convince you to reject heresy. Do you trust Ladislaus' opinion on Trent over St. Alphonus and other theologians who all say that Trent taught Baptism of Desire?
A Catholic is required to believe the Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not allowed to reject even one point. This is why I am telling you this, i care enough about your soul to warn you to avoid heresy.
From all I have read and seen I believe my position is correct because to accept baptism of Desire I would have to believe in contradictions and believe that the Church erred when infallibly defining dogma. The Church declared infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation and you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy. The Church declared infallibly that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and again you are telling me that to believe that is to be in heresy.
:applause:
No one who is aware of the Church's necessity of baptism, but is guilty of refusing to get baptized will be saved.
Of course if they are not aware, through no fault of their own, they are not damned for that reason. This is because God is not an arbitrary tyrant that damns the innocent.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: StubbornQuote from: Ambrose
Stubborn,
Who approves the catechisms of the Church? Who commissions the theologians to explain the truth of the Faith and approves their writings?
You skirt the issue since you reject the direct magisterial teachings on the necessity of the sacraments.
The only question you need to answer is: do you believe the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and that without them man cannot be justified? (the answers are below)
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
As I said to LoT a few posts ago in this thread, I have proven that like him, you do not believe what the Church teaches because you consistently reject the above infallible teaching of the Church.
I believe every word of the Canon, just not your perverse interpretation of it.
Like SJB, you still do not answer the question for the simple reason that you reject the teaching of the Church.
Ambrose, this demonstrates that you do not at all believe what the Church teaches. Do you realize that?
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Quote from: TrentCANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Do you believe the above is an infallible teaching of Holy Mother the Church - the the Church regards such a teaching as coming directly from the mouth of God?
If so, then you are bound to accept what God says without exception.
If so and you do not accept what God says because you think it does not mean what it says because nobody else understands it that way then, you are a fool who chooses to listen to man rather than God.
Simple as that.