Author Topic: No Salvation Outside the Church (Read 11023 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #60 on:** January 07, 2014, 10:30:35 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

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.

Water baptism was probably instituted when Jesus was baptized by Saint John according to others. That is when He sanctified the water for baptism.

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** January 07, 2014, 10:44:30 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
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.

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!

Are you still speaking and writing?

Are you EVER going to take your own advice and refrain from doing both - or do you think you're something special?

Stubborn · « **Reply #62 on:** January 07, 2014, 10:48:04 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: cantrella
The 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.

No, no one has denied that - you have only denied it's necessity unto salvation.

andysloan · « **Reply #63 on:** January 07, 2014, 11:07:51 AM »

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."

crossbro · « **Reply #64 on:** January 07, 2014, 11:14:08 AM »

God loves the faithful so much that he made sure that those who believe in Him and are baptized will not have to spend eternity in heaven with evil people.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #65 on:** January 07, 2014, 11:26:58 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

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."

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?

bowler · « **Reply #66 on:** January 07, 2014, 11:49:00 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote from: andysloan

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:

The Catechism of Trent says "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 .

You quote your interpretation of scripture and your interpretation of St. Thomas. Your "system" is not Catholic.

You have not answered my question. What is this supernatural faith that saves people TODAY without the sacrament of baptism composed of, a belief in what? This is the fourth time I ask.. I don't have a clue what you are trying to inculcate people with here if you don't answer my question.

Your style is typical of all Heroin BODers, you are embarrassed to admit your real belief because it kills all your credibility.

Stubborn · « **Reply #67 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:00:42 PM »

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #68 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:14:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Another heresy from Alphonsus. Stubborn says. Okay Stubborn, thanks for enlightening me.

Cantarella · « **Reply #69 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:19:04 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Cantarella
If 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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #70 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:43:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Cantarella
If 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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #71 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:54:26 PM »

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #72 on:** January 07, 2014, 01:11:52 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Did you just refute the Catholic teach on BOD or make another strange unrelated comment?

Stubborn · « **Reply #73 on:** January 07, 2014, 01:31:41 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #74 on:** January 07, 2014, 02:13:59 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
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.

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.

Is Saint Alphonsus a modernist?